The importance of recitals in gift deeds, the need for evidence to prove permissive possession, and the inference of adverse possession based on continued possession and attending circumstances.

( 1 ) APPEAL filed against the judgment and decree passed by the third Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore in Original Suit No. 10296 of 1988. The appellant is the defendant in the suit. The plaintiffs are the respondents in this appeal filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property consisting of a room in the first floor of the premises bearing No. 24, Chowal Galli, Jumma Masjid Road Cross, bangalore measuring 10!x 20'.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to plaintiffs late Usman Khan who owned property gifted the same in favour of father of the plaintiffs in the year 1948 under registered gift deed. The defendant during that period had gone to Pakistan with a view to settle there. However he came back to India. The plaintiffs' father taking sympathy towards the defendant allowed him to reside in the suit schedule premises which happened somewhere in the year 1951. According to plaintiffs since that date the defendant is in permissive possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The father of the plaintiffs is said to have executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiffs in the year 1958 bequeathing the suit property. After the demise of the plaintiffs' father, -the plaintiff demanded possession from the defendant which was refused. Therefore the present suit came to be filed.

( 3 ) THE appellant-defendant resisted the suit contending that he is residing in the premises in his own right as the property belonging to his father claims inheritance right denies the gift deed executed in favour of the father of the plaintiffs and as well the gift deed executed in favour the plaintiffs by their father and in alternative sets up piea of adverse possession. The defendant also denies the version that he migrated to Pakistan for some time in the year 1948 and thereafter came and settled in India. According to defendant, he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property without interruption. The trial Court on. the consideration of the oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.

( 4 ) THE Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the gift deed executed in favour of plaintiffs' father by late Usman Khan and as well the gift deed executed by. plaintiffs' father in favour of plaintiffs are void since no effective possession was ever delivered. In particular the gift in favour of plaintiffs was seriously challenged. that the suit property obviously being in possession of the defendant, there was no delivery of possession under the gift deed either by actual delivery or by constructive delivery and that there is no acceptance of the gift by the plaintiffs. In that regard the recitals in the gift deed Ex. P. 7 is perused. On the meticulous reading of the recitals in the gift deed Ex. P. 7, it is nowhere indicates that there has been an acceptance of gift by the plaintiffs and so also them is no indication of delivery of possession. However, consideration the validity of the gift made in favour of the plaintiffs would be of little consequence. Since the gift deed executed by Usman Khan in favour of the father of the plaintiff, if established under the said gift deed, the plaintiffs can base their rights to assert the. title.

( 5 ) THE gift deed executed by late Usman Khan in favour of plaintiffs' father is marked at Ex. P. 1. The recitals of the document answers some of the factual questions that are raised in the suit under Ex. P1 late Usman Khan has bequeathed the property in favour of the plaintiffs' father. The recitals are clear and categorical about the conveyance of title. The facts and circumstances that prompted tate Usman Khan to gift the property in favour of plaintiffs' father are narrated. The recitals in the document clearly indicate the delivery of possession and acceptance of gift by the plaintiffs' father. The recitals in the gift deed also in a way corroborates the version of the plaintiff that the defendant had mi