JUDGMENT 1. Heard on admission. 2. This is plaintiff’s second appeal directed against judgment and decree dated 19.9.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No.3-A/2002 by Second Additional District Judge, Astha, District Sehore affirming judgment and decree dated 29.4.2002 passed in Civil Suit No.15-A/1990 by Civil Judge Class-I, Astha. 3. Bhawna had owned 23.26 acre of land in village Barkehda, Astha. He married twice. From the first marriage, born the plaintiff. After death of his first wife, he married Siddhi Bai from whom were born defendant No.1 and 2. 4. That, Bhawna died in the year 1947, whereafter, as per plaintiff, the suit property was divided between the plaintiff and Siddhi Bai. However, subsequently, the defendants got the name recorded over 1/3rd share in the property in the revenue record which led the plaintiff file a suit for declaration of title and for possession over the suit property - 0.97 acre out of survey No.296, 0.55 acre out of survey No.307, 1.31 acre out of survey No.310 and 316/1, 0.04 acre out of survey No.311, 0.29 acre out of survey No.312, 0.48 acre out of survey No.313, 1.00 acre out of survey No.314, 315/1, 2.50 acre out of survey No.352/1, 0.56 acre out of survey No.352/3, 1.13 acre out of survey No.362,363/1, 2.73 acre out of survey No.375/1, 376 and 0.12 acre out of survey No.377/2. 5. Defendants filed counter claim countering the claim of the plaintiff of being owner of 1/2 share over the suit property and claim for partition over 1/3rd each of the share in the suit property. 5. Defendants filed counter claim countering the claim of the plaintiff of being owner of 1/2 share over the suit property and claim for partition over 1/3rd each of the share in the suit property. The trial Court decreed the suit on 29.4.2002 holding plaintiff entitled for 1/2 of the share in the suit property on a finding:- **29- mijksDr foospuk ls eSa ;g fu”d”kZ nsrk g¡w fd oknh lk{; ls ;g fl) gqvk gS fd lu~ 1947 esa fof/kor caVokjk gks x;k Fkk blfy;s okniz’u Ø-2 oknh ds i{k esa ldkjkRed ^^gk¡ izekf.kr gS** fu”df”kZr djrk g¡wA okniz’u Øekad 2 dk vFkok okyk iz’u udkjkRed ^^ugha** esa fu”df”kZr fd;k tkrk gSa ;g fl) ik;k tkrk gS fd oknh 1@2 fgLls dk LoRo/kkjh gS blfy;s okniz’u Øa-3 oknh ds i{k esa ldkjkRed **gk¡** esa fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj okniz’u Øa-4 Hkh oknh ds i{k esa **gk¡** esa fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA oknh lk{; ls ;g Hkh fl) gqvk gS fd caVokjk oknh vkSj izfroknhx.k ds chp fl)hckbZ }kjk djok;k x;k blfy;s vfrfjDr okniz’u Øa-1 ^^gk¡** esa fu”df”kZr fd;k tkrk gS] flf)ckbZ dks caVokjk djokus dk vf/kdkj Fkk blfy;s vfrfjDr okniz’u Øa-2 udkjkRed ^^ugha** esa fuf.kZr djrk gw¡ vkSj flf)ckbZ dh e`R;q gks tkus ls vc 1@4] 1@4 LoRo dk iz’u gh ugha gS vkSj oknh dk 1@2 LoRo ik;k x;k gS blfy;s vfrfjDr okniz’u Øa-3 izfroknhx.k ds fo:) ^^udkjkRed ugha** esa fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA** 6. Defendants being aggrieved preferred an appeal. The appellate Court on the same set of facts reversed the finding arrived at by the trial Court holding that after death of Bhawna, his widow Siddhi Bai and three children including the plaintiff became joint owner of the suit property and Siddhi Bai was not exclusive owner as could have transferred the share in favour of plaintiff when the defendant No.1 and 2 were minor. First appellate Court observed:- **22- bl izdkj mijksDr lk{; foospuk ds vk/kkj ij ns[kk tk, rks gLrxr ekeys ds nksuksa i{kksa ds vfHkopu o lk{; ls izR;sd oknh@izfroknh Øekad&1 o 2 us Lo;a ds gd 1@3 va’k dk dgrs gSa tks izdV djrk gS fd fo/kok fl)hckbZ us vius gd dk vH;kiZ.k dj fn;kA blfy;s mls mlds thoudky esa dksbZ va’k@Hkkx foHkkftr dj nsus dh vko’;drk fn[kkbZ ugha nh FkhA oSls bl okn ds fopkjk/khu jgrs fl)hckbZ ¼ekrk½ e`r gqbZ rc lHkh rhu iq=ksa esa mlds va’k dk foy;@laØkr gks tk,xkA mYys[kuh; gS fd dqVqEc O;oLFkkiu gsrq fo/kok ¼fl)hckbZ½ dks dksbZ vfèkdkj izkIr ugha FkkA og la;qDr fgUnq ifjokj dh drkZ ugha gksrhA vfirq ifr dh e`R;q i’pkr~ leku gd vo’; ifr dh laifÙk esa mls izkIr FkkA bl dkj.k mls viuh bPNkuqlkj e`r ifr }kjk NksM+h xbZ laifÙk ds O;oLFkkiu dk vf/kdkj ugha feyrk gSA og pkgs rks ikfjokfjd vko’;drk gsrq vU;Fkk Hkh vius va’k dh O;oLFkk dj ldrh FkhA vFkkZr fo/kok ds fgr ds fo#) gh og mlds oS;fäd _.k] mÙkjnkf;Ro pkgs ifjokj ds fy, gksrk rks mÙkjnk;h gksrhA 23- mijksDr lk{; vkSj n’kkZ;s fof/kd fl)karksa] izfriknkrkvksa ls Li”V gS fd Lo;a oknh vuqlkj tc izfroknhx.k NksVs o vYio;Ld Fks rc mudh o;Ldrk izkfIr iwoZ mudh lgefr ds fcuk ekrk bPNkuqlkj laiw.kZ lEifÙk dk 1@2 Hkkx oknh dks gh varfjr djus ;k ckaVdj nsus gsrq leFkZ ugha FkkA lkFk gh pwafd jktLo izfo”Vh vuqlkj foHkktu ugha gqvk blfy;s la;qDr :i ls oknh @izfroknhx.k dks la;qDr LokfeRo fookfnr Hkwfe laifÙk esa izkIr gSA vr% oknh vuqlkj dkuwuu mlds fojks/kh vkf/kiR; dh mi/kkj.kk ugha dh tk ldrhA ;fn oknh vuqlkj ekuk tk, fd fl)hckbZ us dfFkr caVokjk ds oDr Lo;a dk va’k ugha fy;k Fkk] mldk ukekarj.k jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa ugha gqvk Fkk rc mlds gd dk vH;kiZ.k fd;k tk ldrk gSA rc Hkh rhu iq= gksus ls lHkh dks leku gd e`r firk }kjk NksM+h xbZ laifÙk esa feysxkA** 7. The first appellate Court also reversed the finding arrived at by the trial Court qua adverse possession holding that since the suit property was a joint property, a co-owner cannot claim to be the owner on the basis of adverse possession. 8. These findings arrived at by the first appellate Court being based on settled principle of law warrant no indulgence. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration, appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. No costs.