Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The substantial question of law formulated and to be answered by this Court in defendants' second appeal is as under:--

"Whether the possession of respondent No. 2/plaintiff over a part of the suit land can, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, be said to be adverse so as to permit him to acquire title?"

[For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court.]

Sans unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be stated for the purpose of disposal of the present second appeal are as under:

1.1 The scheduled suit property bearing Khasra No. 1065/1, area 0.35 decimal situated at village Narayanpur, District Narayanpur was originally held by Medu-defendant No. 1 (died during the pendency of this appeal) and his name stood recorded in the revenue records. The defendant No. 1 - Medu sold and delivered possession of the 0.06 decimal land to the defendant No. 2 Aruna Rani Dutta by registered sale deed dated 17.12.1980 with due permission from the Collector Bastar, after having published notice inviting objections from the public in the local Newspaper and an enquiry been conducted by the Collector defendant No. 2 had mutated her name in the revenue records on the strength of the sale deed.

1.2 The defendant No. 2 had taken possession of the said property in November 1982 and finding 20x20 feet, which defendant No. 2 had purchased from defendant No. 1 was within the possession of the plaintiff, and therefore, defendant No. 2 preferred an application for seeking possession of the said land before the Tehsildar, Narayanpur.

1.3 Thereafter, plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and in alternative, decree for possession contending inter alia that the defendant No. 1 has lost his title over the suit land, as he had constructed a house, courtyard etc. on 0.12 decimal of the said scheduled land in the year 1964, and was in possession since then. The defendant No. 1 (late Medu) did not object to the possession of the plaintiff over the said land for the entire period, and therefore, the plaintiff was in possession of the said land since past 19 years without any objection.

1.4 It was further pleaded that when defendant No. 1 vide registered sale deed dated 17.12.1980 had sold a portion of 0.06 decimal of the said scheduled property to defendant No. 2 for consideration amount of Rs. 2,100/-.

1.5 It was further pleaded that since the plaintiff was in possession of the said scheduled property since 1964, and therefore, defendant No. 1 could not have transferred any title to defendant No. 2 over the scheduled suit land sought of any authority and furthermore, since the plaintiff had already informed defendant No. 2 about his possession over the said land, the defendant No. 2 ought not to have purchased the same.

1.6 It was lastly pleaded that the plaintiff was in possession of the said land since 1964 without any objection adverse to the title of defendant No. 1. Therefore, the plaintiff had perfected his title as the owner of the said property by virtue of having been in continuous possession of the said land and whatever right defendant No. 1 had over the said property had extinguished. Moreover, since defendant No. 2 had purchased the property from defendant No. 1 over which, defendant No. 1 does not have any title, therefore, no title can be transferred to defendant No. 2. The cause of action had arisen in March 1983, when defendant No. 2 had sought to take possession of the scheduled suit property from the plaintiff and started quarrelling with the plaintiff leading to filing of the instant suit for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession, permanent injunction on the strength of said possession, and alternatively decree for possession.

1.7 Defendant No. 1 - Medu filed his written statement stating inter alia that he is title and possession holder of the property and stated t