The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that the failure to prove permissive possession leads to the legal corollary of adverse possession being upheld.

( 1 ) THIS appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28. 9. 99 in RA No. 17/85 on the file of the addl. District Judge, Raichur, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 31. 8. 85 in O. S. No. 171/81 on the file of the Civil Judge, Raichur. For convenient discussion the appellant would be called plaintiffs and the respondents as defendants.

( 2 ) THE appellants are the LRs of the deceased plaintiff, who filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property and for possession. According to plaintiff his grand father one Narasappa is the propositus. The suit properties are ancestral properties. Propositus died leaving behind two sons by name Basanna and Balayya. Plaintiff is the son of Basanna. The first defendant is the wife of Balayya and the second defendant is the daughter of Balayya. Basanna died in the year 1975. Balayya died in the year 1976. Plaintiff contends that in the year 1939 as per Ex P1 Balayya released his share in the suit property in favour of Basanna. Balayya had no residence and he was financially not well placed, therefore plaintiff's father Basanna permitted balayya to live in the suit house as licensee. When the defendants took hostile attitude, the suit came to be filed for declaration of title and possession.

( 3 ) THE defendants denied the plaintiff's title. It is said that Balayya constructed the suit house investing his earnings. The property was mutated in the municipal records in the year 1963 in favour of the first defendant and she is in possession and occupation in her own right. It is said that the husband of the first defendant orally given the property to the first defendant for her maintenance. Therefore, under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, she has become the absolute owner of the property. The first defendant alternatively contends that she has perfected her title by adverse possession. It is further said that the first defendant has made a registered will in favour of second defendant. The defendant denies the theory of permissive possession, denies the execution of release deed by Balayya and contends that the release deed is concocted and fabricated.

( 4 ) THE trial Court finds that Ex P1 the relinquishment deed does not pertain to the suit house since the southern boundary of the property in the deed does not tally with the suit schedule property and that the plaintiff has failed to show that the property mentioned as house No. 756/ 1348 fasli relates to the suit house bearing Municipal No. 11-7-40. The trial Court also finds that adverse possession is proved and the theory of permissive possession not proved. Accordingly, dismissed the suit. The first appellate Court confirmed the findings in the judgment and decree of the trial Court. This Court in RSA 237/88 remanded the matter to the appellate Court for re-consideration of the case to find out whether the partition is proved and whether the first defendant has put up the construction of the house from their earnings and whether such construction was put up when the family was joint and also to find out whether the parties are entitled to equal share in the property.

( 5 ) THE appellate Court after remand comes to the conclusion that the partition between the parties is proved, holds that the defendants have failed to prove that they have put up the construction of the house. Further, holds that the family was not joint and the property is not a joint property, but in the judgment rendered by the appellate Court prior to the remand had upheld the finding of the trial Court on the question of adverse possession in favour of the first defendant.

( 6 ) THE case is at the stage of admission. LCRs have been secured. The Learned Counsel for the parties argued on merits for final disposal.

( 7 ) THE following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration:- " (1) Whether the findings of the appellate Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove the title to the