JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. Heard. 2. This regular second appeal arises out of concurrent findings of fact returned against the appellants herein by both the learned Courts below, in a suit for grant of a decree of declaration with consequential relief of prohibitory injunction, claiming acquisition of title to the suit land by adverse possession. 3. The appeal is sought to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. When the defendant who was not owner but being in possession received the price and delivered the possession, vide a registered sale deed dated 4.1.1962, but thereafter he got the ownership by way of inheritance, whether the defendant is not bound by the sale deed? 2. When the possession of the land in dispute was delivered to the plaintiffs by written sale deed, whether the plaintiff can be dispossessed except in accordance with law? 3. Whether the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence which goes to the root of the case?” 4. Admittedly, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein, Sh. Mastu @ Mast Ram had purchased land from the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 4 herein, late Sh. Mast Ram @ Dhani Ram, which was to the extent of 15/20, or say 3/4 share of Khata No.50, Khatauni Nos.139, 140, 141 and 142, Khasra Nos.83, 84, 85, 86, 87 and 88, plots 6, measuring 0-67-49 hectares, to the extent of 0-50-62 hectares. The remaining 5/20, or say 1/4 share to the extent of 0-16-87 hectares in the said Khata (suit land) was owned by one Smt. Jalpo Devi wife of Sh. Shali, on whose death, her share was also inherited by the aforesaid, late Sh. Mast Ram @ Dhani Ram. 5. The claim with regard to acquisition of ownership by adverse possession in respect of the suit land, being 1/4th share of Smt. Jalpo Devi, was set up by the plaintiff. 6. Admittedly, the plaintiff was a co-sharer in the entire Khata. Thus, he could have succeeded in his plea of adverse possession against another co-owner only in case he had pleaded and proved ouster of the co-owner in respect of whose share he was claiming title by adverse possession. However, neither any such pleadings were set up, nor there is any evidence of such ouster. Thus, he could have succeeded in his plea of adverse possession against another co-owner only in case he had pleaded and proved ouster of the co-owner in respect of whose share he was claiming title by adverse possession. However, neither any such pleadings were set up, nor there is any evidence of such ouster. Even otherwise, claim for acquisition of ownership by way of adverse possession is being looked down upon by the Courts as an affront to human rights, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Others vs. Revamma and Others, (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 59 and Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and Others, (2009) 16 Supreme Court cases 517. 7. Furthermore, the substantial questions of law, as framed revolve around factual matrix and cannot be said to be substantial questions of law, much less questions of law. 8. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being without any merit.