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 suit schedule property together with mesne profits of Rs.1,150/- till the date of the suit and also future mesne profits of Rs.50/per month.

5. It is stated that the plaintiff is the karta of the joint family consisting of three brothers and widowed mother. The father of the plaintiff died on 22-9-1980 and the plaintiff being the eldest son, has become the karta of the joint family, after the death of his father. The plaintiffs father was the owner of the house bearing

No.2-4-78 and an open land, with a dilapidated house, bearing No.2-4-77, along with many other immovable properties at Sadasivpet. The said properties were left by the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his family members have succeeded to the properties, after the death of the plaintiff’s father.

6. It is also stated that the first defendant, who is the father of the second defendant, was a poor man and he used to purchase cloths from the father of the plaintiff, mostly on credit basis. Due to long association, the first defendant almost became a family member of the plaintiff’s family and when the first defendant expressed his inability to have a residential house, the father of the plaintiff permitted the first defendant to use the house, bearing No.2-4-78 at Sadasivpet. Since the open place, bearing No.2-4-77, was adjoining the said house, the same was also permitted to be used by the first defendant and the first defendant was using the said open space. During his lifetime, the father of the plaintiff effected repairs and maintenance to the suit house which was under permissive possession of the first defendant. The suit schedule property was standing in the name of the father of the plaintiff in the municipal records, as he was the real owner. Subsequent to the death of the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and his brothers have become the owners. On 16-3-1980, the plaintiff and his mother asked the defendants to give possession of the house and the open land. But, the defendants denied the title of the plaintiff and his family, and claimed that the property stands in their name in the municipal records. Thereupon, the plaintiff’s mother made an application to the Municipality, as elder member of the family, and on enquiry as to flow the property was transferred in the name of the second defendant, the Municipal Commissioner, Sadasivpet, has issued a letter, dated 28-8-1981, directing the parties to seek redressal by establishing their rights before the Civil Court. Hence, the suit was filed.

7. It is further stated that the defendants do not have any right whatsoever in respect of the suit schedule property. Therefore, they are not entitled to continue in possession, as the possession is only permissive. However, the defendants played mischief in collusion with the