JUDGMENT : Anil Satyavijay Kilor, J. 1. The dismissal of appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, vide judgment and decree dated 16th January, 2016 passed by the District Judge-VI, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 187 of 2013 arising out of the dismissal of suit for declaration and permanent injunction, vide judgment and decree dated 2nd May, 2013 passed by the Civil judge, Junior Division, Kuhi in Regular Civil Suit No. 21 of 2009, has been assailed in the present appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs. 2. Heard Shri S.L. Kotal, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. Anita Shinde, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Shri J.D. Vaidya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 7. 3. This Court while admitting the present appeal on 12th September, 2017 framed the following substantial questions of law "Whether the plaintiff would be entitled for relief of permanent injunction on the basis of their possessory title". 4. The facts leading to the present appeal, are that the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are sons and the defendant Nos. 4 to 7 are the daughters of the defendant No. 2. 5. The suit properties i.e. Gut Nos. 82, 109, 512 and 27 were originally belonging to one Smt. Mainabai Chaitram, who died in the year 1962. 6. It is the case of the plaintiffs that during the life time of Mainabai, the suit properties were mutated in the name of Baliram Devaji Shende, Mahadeorao Laxmanrao Mugelwar, Wasudeo Gopal Rakshamwar and Laxman Gopal Nimbalkar and they were in possession of the suit properties. The plaintiffs further plead that Mahadeorao and Laxman left village Chipdi long ago and Wasudeo died in the year 1990. 7. It is the further case of the plaintiff that Baliram died in the year 1985 and after his demise on 22nd May, 1995 the names of plaintiff as legal heirs of Baliram were mutated in the revenue record after following the procedure namely issuance of notice to Mahadeorao, Wasudeo and Laxman and further by publishing proclamation, inviting objection. 8. Plaintiffs further plead that on failure to raise any objection by anybody, the Tehsildar deleted the names of Mahadeo, Wasudeo and Laxman from the revenue record. The said order was belatedly challenged after 14 years before the Sub -Divisional Officer who has set aside the order of Tehsildar. 8. Plaintiffs further plead that on failure to raise any objection by anybody, the Tehsildar deleted the names of Mahadeo, Wasudeo and Laxman from the revenue record. The said order was belatedly challenged after 14 years before the Sub -Divisional Officer who has set aside the order of Tehsildar. The said order of the Sub- Divisional Officer was confirmed by the Commissioner. The plaintiffs state that the defendants thereafter threatened the plaintiffs to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs, hence, they filed the suit. 9. The defendant by filling their written statement resisted the suit and thereby denied the contentions of the plaintiffs in toto. 10. The plaintiffs examined plaintiff No. 1-Haribhau and one Pandurang as witnesses, whereas defendants examined defendant No. 1 Pramod and Madhukar in support of their case. 11. Learned trial Court after considering and analysing the oral as well as documentary evidence, held against the plaintiffs that they failed to prove their ownership by way of adverse possession and also failed to prove that the defendants have no right or title in the suit property. 12. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2nd May, 2013 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 22 of 2009 which was assailed in Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure before the District Judge-VI in Regular Civil Appeal No. 187 of 2013. The said appeal also came to be dismissed by upholding the judgment of the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 16th January, 2016. The same is under challenge in the present appeal. 13. Shri Kotwal, learned counsel for the appellants submit that both the Courts below failed to consider maxims "possession contra omnes valet praeter eur cui ius sit possessionis". He submits that plaintiffs have proved their long standing possession over the suit property and therefore the burden lies on the defendants to prove that the plaintiffs were not owner. However, both the Courts below have held contrary to the well settled law and failed to consider long standing possession to the plaintiffs. 14. He further submits that possessory title is good against all the world but the rightful owner. He submits that a person in possession of land in assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but rightly owner. 15. 14. He further submits that possessory title is good against all the world but the rightful owner. He submits that a person in possession of land in assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but rightly owner. 15. He further submits that when the facts disclose no title in either party, possession alone decides. In absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title, law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. Thus, he submits that in the facts of the given cases both the Courts ought to have held in favour of the plaintiffs that they are in 'possessory title' and in absence of proof of better title, settled possession of the plaintiff is itself evidence of title. In support of his contention, Shri Kotwal, learned counsel for the appellants has placed following citations: I. Nair Services Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander and others, reported in : AIR 1968 SCC 1165 II. Mariumbi Aslamkhan and another v. Vithoba Yeshwanta and others reported in AIR 1970 Bombay 405. III. Rame Gowda (Dead) by Lrs v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by Lrs and another reported in (2004) 1 SCC 769 : ( AIR 2004 SC 4609 ). 16. Per contra, Shri Vaidya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 submits that the case of the plaintiff was never based on 'possessory title' and it was never pleaded nor proved or argued before both the Courts below. He points out that the ground in respect of 'possessory title' has been raised and argued first time in this second appeal, therefore, on the basis of ground which was never raised and argued before both the Courts below, the judgment and decree of both the Courts below cannot be faulted. 17. He submits that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is limited and where the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below unless suffer from perversity, the High Court cannot interfere. 18. Smt. Shinde, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 echoed the argument advanced by learned counsel Shri Vaidya and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 19. 18. Smt. Shinde, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 echoed the argument advanced by learned counsel Shri Vaidya and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 19. To consider the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the record and judgments cited by the appellants. 20. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the pleadings and oral evidence of the plaintiffs as regards ownership of the suit property. 21. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have pleaded that "Originally the field at Mouza Chipdi, Tan. Kuhi, Dist. Nagpur Gut Nos. 82, 109, 512, 27 belongs to Smt. Mainabai Chitarin. She was legal and absolute owner of the fields. That the names of Shri Baliram Devaji Shende, Shri Mahadeo Ramkrishna Mujgelwar, Shri Wasudeo Gopal Rakshamwar and Shri Laxman Gopal Nimbalkar had been mutated in revenue record as owners during the life time of Mainabai". 22. Thus, admittedly it is the case of plaintiffs that Baliram, Mahadeorao, Wasudeo and Laxman were joint owners of the suit property. 23. There is no dispute that plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Baliram, whereas the defendants are legal heirs of Wasudeo. 24. In the oral evidence the plaintiff No. 1, Haribhau deposed on the same line of pleadings and thereby admitted the joint ownership of Baliram, Mahadeorao, Wasudeo and) Laxman. 25. Hence, looking to the pleadings and oral evidence of the plaintiffs there is no doubt that plaintiffs and defendants entered into the shoes of Baliram and Wasudeo respectively and became the co-owners of the suit property. 26. Now moving further the plaintiffs are claiming declaration that the plaintiffs are the owner of suit fields. To claim ownership they have pleaded that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession of the suit property without any interruption by anyone or defendants and they are the owner of field at Mouza Chipdi, Tan. Kuhi, District-Nagpur Gut No. 82, 109, 512, 27 by way of adverse possession. 27. From the above referred pleadings it is clear that the ownership of suit fields has been claimed by the plaintiffs on the basis of adverse possession. It is a well settled law that an adverse possession can only be claimed against the owner of the property. Thus, again the plaintiffs are admitting the ownership of the defendants in the suit property. 28. It is a well settled law that an adverse possession can only be claimed against the owner of the property. Thus, again the plaintiffs are admitting the ownership of the defendants in the suit property. 28. In oral evidence also the plaintiffs are maintaining their case of ownership on the basis of adverse possession. 29. In the oral evidence as well as in written statement, the defendants are not disputing the co-ownership of Baliram with Wasudeo, Devaji, Madhavrao and Laxman. 30. There is also no dispute that the names of Baliram, Wasudeo, Devaji, Madhavrao and Laxman were mutated in the revenue record and without the knowledge to others, the plaintiffs removed the names of Wasudeo, Devaji, Madhavrao and Laxman, which mistake has been corrected by the Sub Divisional Officer and by the Commissioner. 31. The appellants/plaintiffs now first time in this second appeal have come up with the case of 'possessory title'. The whole thrust of argument of Shri Kotwal, learned counsel for the appellants was on possessory title. 32. In support of his contention and to prove the ownership by way of possessory title, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of Nair Service Society Ltd., v. K.C. Alexander and others (supra) and in the case of Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by Lrs and another (supra). 33. In all these judgments cited by the appellants without any ambiguity, it has been held that the concept of possessory title is based on the principle that possession constitute by itself a limited title to the property, a title which is good against all except the rightful owner. This title, usually described as possessory title, has all the features of an estate in land. Like any other estate, it can be transferred inter vivos or by a testamentary disposition and can also be acquired by inheritance. 34. In the present matter admittedly, the plaintiffs in their pleadings and also in their oral evidence have categorically admitted the co-ownership of Wasudeo with Baliram, Mahadeorao and Laxman. The plaintiffs are also admitting in clear terms that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Baliram and the defendants are the legal heirs of Wasudeo. 34. In the present matter admittedly, the plaintiffs in their pleadings and also in their oral evidence have categorically admitted the co-ownership of Wasudeo with Baliram, Mahadeorao and Laxman. The plaintiffs are also admitting in clear terms that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Baliram and the defendants are the legal heirs of Wasudeo. The pleadings and oral evidence to that regard is sufficient in this matter to hold that the plaintiffs and defendants are co-owners of the suit property. 35. Once, it is clear that the plaintiffs own case is that Baliram, Mahadeorao, Wasudeo and Laxman were the co-owners of the suit property, after Baliram, Mahadeorao, Wasudeo and Laxman the title will flow in favour of their legal heirs. 36. Having observed that the plaintiffs and defendants are the legal heirs of Baliram and Wasudeo respectively, the above referred judgments and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Mariumbi Aslamkhan and another v. Vithoba Yeshwanta and others (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellants whereby he tried for the first time to raise a ground of 'possessory title' before this Court cannot be accepted. In the circumstances, the said judgments are distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the present case. 37. In the present matter, both the Courts below after analyzing evidence of oral as well as documentary have concurrently held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership by way of adverse possession as claimed in the suit. In view of that matter, I do not find any perversity in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. I answered the substantial question of law accordingly. 38. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.