A person in unauthorized occupation who admits the title of the true owner cannot acquire title to the property by adverse possession.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits.

( 2 ) THE disputed house belonged to one Hiru Sheikh. He died in 1948 leaving behind him his four song and two daughters. The heirs of Hiru Sheikh, namely, Abdul Latif. Abdul Gani and others were living in the disputed house being premises No. 4. R. N. Chatterjee Lane. Baranagar. There was a communal riot in or about March, 1950, and they had to leave the disputed house and take shelter in village Badra, in the interior part of the district of 24-Parganas. Taking advantage of their absence, the defendant who is a refugee from East Pakistan, occupied the disputed house which was lying vacant. The plaintiff purchased the disputed house from Abdul Latif and others on May 29, 1964, by a registered sale deed. He mutated his name in the Municipal Register and paid taxes. The plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the disputed house, but the defendant, though he assured the plaintiff that he would vacate the same, did not ultimately do so. In the circumstances, the plaintiff instituted the suit for the reliefs aforesaid.

( 3 ) THE main defence of the defendant is that he has acquired title to the disputed house by adverse possession for a period of over twelve years. He came to the disputed house in March, 1950 and since then he has been in uninterrupted possession thereof. It is contended by him that the suit is barred by limitation and adverse possession.

( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge, 5th Court. Alipore, came to the finding that the defendant had acquired title to the disputed house by adverse possession. Upon the said finding, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal,

( 5 ) THE only question that is involved in this appeal is, whether the defendant has acquired title to the disputed house by adverse possession. On the allegations made in the plaint, it is clear that Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to the case. The plaintiff has brought the suit for possession of the disputed house basing his claim on title and not on prior possession and dispossession. The period of limitation as prescribed by Article 65 is twelve years from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge has also held end, in our opinion, rightly that Article 65 applies. In the written statement, it is the positive case of the defendant and it is also his evidence that within 4 or 5 months of his coming into possession of the disputed house, he wanted to purchase the same. There is some negotiation in the matter, but as Abdul Gani, one of the sons of Hiru Sheikh proposed to get the deed of sale registered by false personation of some of the vendors who were then living in East Pakistan and unable to come to Calcutta for the purpose of registration, the defendant did not agree. It thus appears that the defendant admitted the title of the plaintiff's vendors after he came to occupy the disputed house. In our view, when a person in unauthorised occupation admits the title of the true owner his possession of the property will not be adverse to the true owner.

( 6 ) IT is also the plaintiff's case that after his purchase of the disputed house he contacted the defendant several times and requested him to vacate the same, and before his purchase his vendors on some occasions contacted the defendant and demanded vacant possession from him. But each time the defendant assured them and the plaintiff that he would vacate the disputed house as soon as he would get alternative accommodation from the Government by way of rehabilitation. P. W. 3 Priyabrata Dasgupta who was the Secretary of the Refugee Committee and P. W. 4 Sushil Kumar Mukherjee have corroborated the plaintiff's case. The learned Subordinate Judge has not believed the evidence of P. W. 3, because he lent some money to the defenda