JUDGMENT 1. The learned counsel for the appellants is heard on the question of admission. This appeal under section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 passed in Regular Civil Appeal 20-A/2017 and 21-A/2017 by the IInd Additional District Judge, Shujalpur, District Shujalpur arising out of the judgment and decree dated 10.8.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.136- A/2017 by the Ist Civil Judge, Class-II, District Shujalpur whereby their claim for specific performance of contract dated 18.4.1989 and for permanent injunction has been dismissed and the counter claim of defendant No.1/appellants has been decreed. 2. As per plaintiffs, Lakhanlal Nai, defendant No.1, was the owner of the suit land bearing survey No.454/3 area 0.418 hectare Gram Pipliya Nagar, Tehsil Kalapipal, District Shajapur. On 18.04.1989 he entered into an agreement with Chhotelal, husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs 2 to 7 for sale of the suit land in his favour at the rate of 2000/- per bigha. An agreement was also executed between them in that regard on 18.4.1989 upon payment of an amount of Rs.4000/- by Chhotelal to defendant No.1 followed by delivery of possession. Chhotelal remained in possession of suit land during his lifetime and after him the plaintiffs have been in possession thereof. Chhotelal requested defendant No.1 for execution of the sale deed in his favour on a number of occasions but he refused to do so on some pretext or of the other. Upon death of Chhotelal, plaintiffs requested defendant No.1 for execution of the sale deed but he did not do so and in the year 2011 specifically stated that he shall not execute the sale deed leading to institution of the instant suit. 3. The defendant No.1 contested the plaintiffs’ claim by filing his written statement submitting inter alia that no agreement to sale was executed between him and Chhotelal, that the agreement set up by plaintiffs is forged and fabricated, that he had purchased the suit land on 29.4.1981 by way of a registered sale deed and has been in possession thereof ever since then, that plaintiffs have forcibly taken possession of the suit land from him in 2009 and have illegally got their possession recorded over the suit land in the revenue records. The defendant No.1 also laid a counter claim for declaration of his title to the suit land, for possession of the same from plaintiffs and for mesne profit. The plaintiffs filed their written statement to the counter claim of defendant No.1. 4. The trial Court held that plaintiffs have not been able to prove that defendant No.1 had entered into an agreement to sale with Chhotelal on 18.4.1989, that they have also failed to prove that they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, that defendant No.1 has also failed to prove that he is the owner of the suit land and that he is not entitled for possession of the same from plaintiffs though his counter claim is within time. In consequence, plaintiffs claim as well as counter claim of defendant No.1 both were dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree aforesaid, the plaintiffs as well as defendant No.1 preferred separate appeals before the Lower Appellate Court which have been heard and decided together by the impugned judgment. While plaintiffs’ appeal has been dismissed, the appeal preferred by defendant No.1 has been partly allowed and he has been declared to be the owner of the suit land and has been held entitled for obtaining possession of the same from plaintiffs. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Courts below have committed a gross error of law in holding that plaintiffs have failed to prove the execution of the agreement dated 18.4.1989 by defendant No.1 in favour of Chhotelal. The evidence adduced by plaintiffs in that regard has totally been misread and mis-appreciated by them. The counter claim filed by defendant No.1 was barred by time whereas the Lower Appellate Court has erred in allowing the same. No issue was framed by the trial Court as regards the counter claim being barred by time. The plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit land ever since the date of execution of agreement to sale in favour of Chhotelal hence were entitled for protection of their possession under the provisions of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The title of defendant No.1 to the suit land has not been proved by him but has illegally been upheld by the lower Appellate Court. The title of defendant No.1 to the suit land has not been proved by him but has illegally been upheld by the lower Appellate Court. It is also submitted that as plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit land ever since the date of execution of agreement in favour of Chhotelal, they have acquired title to the suit land by virtue of adverse possession. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bonder Singh and others v. Nihal Singh and others [ AIR 2003 SC 1905 ], Syed Dastagir v. T.T. Gopalakrishna Setty [ AIR 1999 SC 3029 ], Ram Awadh (dead) by L.Rs. and others v. Achhaibar Dubey and another [ AIR 2000 SC 860 ] and Ashwinkumar Manilal Shah and others v. Chhotabhai Jethabhai patel and others [AIR 2001 Gujrat 90]. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. Both the Courts below have extensively considered the oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced by plaintiffs and have arrived at a finding that they have not been able to prove that on 18.4.1989 defendant No.1 had executed any agreement to sale in favour of Chhotelal. This finding has particularly been arrived at for the reason that no attesting witness to the agreement has been examined. The defendant No.1 had specifically denied the execution of the agreement by him in favour of Chhotelal hence, it was incumbent upon plaintiffs to prove the execution of the said agreement which they have failed to do. In the agreement there are no signature of Chhotelal. It is not clarified by plaintiffs as to where the document was executed. The evidence of plaintiff No.1 Kesharbai as PW.1 has been considered in observing that there are several discrepancies in her statement. Thus the finding that plaintiffs have failed to prove the execution of the agreement to sale being a finding of fact arrived at on the basis of the material available on record is not liable to be interfered with at the second appellate stage. 8. The Courts below have also recorded a categoric finding that plaintiffs have failed to prove that Chhotelal, and after his death, they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. 8. The Courts below have also recorded a categoric finding that plaintiffs have failed to prove that Chhotelal, and after his death, they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The agreement was admittedly executed in the year 1989 whereas the suit was filed in the year 2012 i.e. after a period of 23 years. There is no plea or proof as to what concrete steps were taken during this period for seeking execution of the sale deed from defendant No.1. The explanation offered by plaintiffs for the delay and latches in filing the suit of defendant No.1 avoiding to execute the sale deed is not acceptable. 9. As plaintiffs have failed to prove the execution of the agreement to sale itself, the question of their entitlement to protect their possession under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act does not arise at all. Likewise, in absence of proof of their possession ever since 1989, their claim for declaration of title on the ground of having acquired the same by virtue of adverse possession is also not liable to be entertained. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants hence have no applicability in view of facts of the case. 10. The plaintiffs had themselves claimed specific performance of contract from defendant No.1 meaning thereby that they have themselves admitted title of defendant No.1 to the suit land and have sought conveyance of the same in their favour. Since plaintiffs have themselves admitted title of defendant No.1. There was hence no requirement of proof of title of defendant No.1 as it is well settled that admitted facts are not required to be proved. In any case defendant No.1 has produced the sale deed dated 29.4.1981 Exhibit D/1 in his favour from which his title has been categorically proved. The Lower Appellate Court has hence not committed any error in reversing the finding recorded by the trial Court in that regard and declaring defendant No.1 to be the owner of the suit land. 11. The plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the suit land under the arrangement of sale. However, defendant No.1 has categorically pleaded and proved from his documents that plaintiffs have forcibly dispossessed him from the suit land in the year 2009. 11. The plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the suit land under the arrangement of sale. However, defendant No.1 has categorically pleaded and proved from his documents that plaintiffs have forcibly dispossessed him from the suit land in the year 2009. Prior to 2009 there is no document available on record to show that plaintiffs were ever in possession of the suit land. The title of defendant No.1 has been validly proved by him hence he is entitled to recover possession from the plaintiffs. In absence of any proof of possession of plaintiffs prior to 2009, there is no reason to disbelieve the averment of defendant No.1 that he was forcibly dispossessed by plaintiffs in 2009. His counter claim for possession is based upon title and was filed by him on 6.1.2015. The same was hence well within time as has been rightly held by the Lower Appellate Court. 12. Thus the Lower Appellate Court has not committed any error of law in dismissing plaintiffs' appeal and affirming dismissal of their claim by the trial Court and in allowing the appeal of defendant No.1 and decreeing their claim for defalcation of title and possession. The finding recorded by Lower Appellate Court are perfectly just and proper and are supported by the evidence available on record. No illegality or perversity is found in the same. No substantial question of law arises for determination in the appeal. Thus affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court, the appeal is dismissed in limine.