first Appellate Court to accept the report of Local Commissioner was that no objection was raised by the present appellant, whereas the same is incorrect. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that report of Local Commissioner Ex.D1/A makes it ample clear that Local Commissioner made report that demarcation could not be done because of non-availability of record of consolidation and Musavi. More so, no pucca burji was available at the spot. The first Appellate Court relied upon the report of Local Commissioner, which is practically no report. Otherwise, defendants have come with the plea of adverse possession. But they failed to prove the basic ingredients of adverse possession. It is settled proposition of law that adverse possession is to be pleaded and proved strictly. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and Others 2009(16) SCC 517 . But the first Appellate Court recorded the findings on the same. More so, law on the point is settled that if any party takes the plea of adverse possession, that by implication means that the opposite party is the owner of the property and the party claiming adverse possession has become owner of the property because of adverse possession. In case, the plea of adverse possession was taken by the defendant was not proved, plaintiffs are admittedly owner of the suit property and suit of the plaintiff was required to be decreed qua land bearing khasra No. 316/1 measuring 852 square yards of land. But the first Appellate Court recorded erroneous findings.
