A licensee cannot claim title only from possession however long unless it is proved that the possession was adverse to the licensor, to his knowledge and with his acquiescence.

( 1 ) I have the benefit of going through the draft judgment of my learned Brother and I agree with His Lordship's conclusion and findings. However, to supplement it slightly I add few words with the risk of surplussage. The decree of eviction is impugned in this appeal by the appellants who are predecessor in interest of one samulya Das, since deceased.

( 2 ) THE short case of the plaintiff is that one Sunil Chowdhuri, since deceased who was the father of the plaintiff No. 2 and the husband of plaintiff No. 1, purchased amongst other the suit property from one baidya Nath Dutta and Nirmal Chandra Dutta. Sunil was a modestly prosperous businessman and he had has civil construction business. He died leaving the plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 and his father namely one Kshetranath Chowdhuri then surviving now since deceased. After death of Sunil father Kshetranath became the guardian of persons and properties of the Plaintiff No. 2 Kshetranath allowed Samulya, since deceased to occupy the suit premises where habitable structure had already been built by his son Sunil as at that point of time it was difficult for Kshetranath to manage the property effectively because some local people wanted to grab the property illegally. In order to prevent such illegal possession of the suit property being taken Samulya was allowed to occupy and stay as licensee. After death of Kshetranath and on attaining majority the plaintiff No. 2 along with his mother, the plaintiff No. 1 wanted to get back the suit property. As such the defendant being the predecessor in interest of Samulya das, since deceased were asked to vacate and quit the same. So it was simple suit for recovery of possession of the property on revocation of leave and license. The defendants filed written statement and they denied the ownership of the plaintiff. They also denied that their father samulya Das had been in possession of the suit property as licensee, according to them Samulya Das having found the property in vacant condition and having found no owner nor any claimant occupied the same erecting structures and shed for their residence.

( 3 ) SAMULYA Das came from a nearby village in search of employment, later on he became very competent and reputed mason in the locality. Since then the property has been in possession of samulya and after his death the defendants have been in possession uninterruptedly to the notice and knowledge of every one and thus they became owner by way of adverse possession.

( 4 ) ON the face of the aforesaid pleading the following issues are framed by the learned Trial Judge:

1. Is the suit maintainable in law and its present form? 2. Is there any cause of action for the suit? 3. Are the plaintiffs owners of the disputed properties as alleged? 4. Are the defendants licensees in the disputed properties under the plaintiffs as alleged?

( 5 ) ARE the plaintiffs entitled to get a decree for declaration and recovery of khas possession as prayed for?

( 6 ) TO what other relief or reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?

( 7 ) WHETHER the title of the plaintiffs in A schedule property has been extinguished by the act of adverse possession of the defendants?

5. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case particularly the ownership of the same examined plaintiff No. 2 and one Ramendra sundar Mondal and also adduced documentary evidence. The appellant/defendant No. 1 himself also examined as defendant witness, one Sunil Ranjan Chakraborty, one Satyasadhan Panja, one Ashoke kumar Biswas and one Rabi Kanta Das were examined on behalf of the defendant. 6. The learned Trial Judge has found that the plaintiffs have been able to prove the case of ownership and the appellants/defendants failed to prove the case of adverse possession and granted decree. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidence legally and properly as the plaintiffs could not prove the ownership an