( 1 ) IT is beyond dispute that the appellant was inducted as a sub-lessee by the respondent over the property in dispute but that sub-lease by itself was illegal in view of Section 27 of the Santhal Parganas Regulation III of 1872. A claim was set up by the appellant before the courts below that since the sub-lease was illegal, the day on which he was put in possession of the property in dispute, commenced his adverse possession. This plea had been rejected by a division bench of the High court, upsetting the views of the courts below. The High court has termed, and in our view rightly, the possession of the appellant as permissive, not adjudged hostile till such time by some overt or notorious act, intention to set up hostile title wasmanifested. The appellant could not in this manner claim to have got into possession of the property in dispute as if hostilely since his induction was a permissive in the first instance and at no point of time was it converted into hostility by an overt act. Since that has not been done at any point of time, the appellant is debarred from setting up such title. The view of the High court in this regard gets our approval. We therefore dismiss this a