Appellant is the plaintiff. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 19-8-1995, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in AS No.9 of 1993, by which, the judgment and decree, dated 23-4-1993, passed by the learned District Munsif, Sangareddy in OS No.27 of 1982 was reversed and dismissed the suit.

2. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law raised in the grounds of appeal:

(c) The appellate Court could not appreciate the aspect of burden of proof especially in the light of Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act.

(g) The appellate Court should have appreciated that the alleged sale cannot be relied upon in the light of Section 17 of the Registration Act and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(h) The appellate Court should have appreciated that the defendant’s never denied the title of the plaintiffs and hence the adverse possession never commenced at all at any point of time, since permissive possession however long it may be will not amount to adverse possession.

3. The brief facts of the case are:

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration as well as for recovery of