The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof for adverse possession and the requirement for explicit evidence of hostile title to establish adverse possession.

By this appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment passed by the District Judge, Buldhana, in Regular Civil Appeal No.48 of 1994, on 26th December, 1995, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, if. Dn., Buldhana, in Regular Civil Appeal No.17 of 1992 on 14-021994.

2. Few facts giving rise to the second appeal are stated thus -

The appellants and the respondent no.4 are the original plaintiffs. They are the daughters of one Sheikh Mahmud. Sheikh Mahmud died in the year 1948 leaving behind him his widow Khatijabi, the plaintiffs and his two sons Sheikh Ahmad and Sheikh Yusuf who are arrayed as the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to the suit. Khatijabi died in the year 1988. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties were owned and possessed by their father Sheikh Mahmud and the plaintiffs and the defendant nos.1 and 2 have inherited the suit properties and are in joint possession of the same. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that entries in the name of the defendant nos.1 and 2, in the revenue records were illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs. It was also pleaded on behalf of the plaintiffs that the defendant nos.1 and 2 had illegally sold some property in favour of the defendant no.3 in the year 1987. The plaintiffs demanded their shares in the properties in the year 1991 and since the same was not acceded to, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and possession of their 1/9th share in the suit property.

3. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs and pleaded that Sheikh Mahmud had orally gifted the suit property to the respondent nos.1 and 2 in presence of panchas, in the year 1948. According to the defendant nos.1 and 2, they became the absolute owners of the suit property in terms of the oral gift and some of the properties were sold by the defendant nos.1 and 2, to the defendant no. 3 as they were the owners thereof. It was pleaded by the defendant nos.1 and 2 that the suit was barred by limitation.

4. The trial Court framed the issues and after considering the evidence tendered by the parties on record, held that the plaintiffs, proved that they inherited the suit property along with the defendant nos.1 and 2. The Court further held that the defendant nos.1 and 2 had illegally sold the land to the defendant no.3 and the sale transaction was not binding on the plaintiffs. The trial Court held that the defendants had failed to prove that they became the owners of the suit property by adverse possession. The Court also held that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 failed to prove that Sheikh Mahmud had orally gifted the suit property to the defendant nos. 1 and 2. In the result, the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and declared that each of the plaintiffs had 1/9th share in the suit property as the five daughters took one share each and the two sons took two shares each in view of the principles of Muslim Law.

5. In an appeal preferred by the defendants, the appellate Court held that the defendants failed to prove that their father had gifted the suit properties to them by oral gift, in the year 1918. The Court, however, held that the defendants had succeeded in proving their title to the suit property by adverse possession. In view of this finding, the court held that the plaintiffs had shares only in the share of Khatijabi. The appellate Court, therefore, held that each of the plaintiff had 1/72th share in the suit property. The judgment of the appellate Court is challenged by the plaintiffs.

6. Shri. Qazi, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the first appellate Court committed a serious error in reversing the finding recorded by the trial Court on the issue of adverse possession as there was absolutely no evidence tendered by the defendants to show that the defendants had asserted a hostile title to the suit property, to the notice and knowledge of the plaintiffs. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, mere long standing posse