A review petition is not maintainable if the error complained of is not a "patent error".

1. This review petition arises out of Civil 2nd Appeal No. 32 of 1971 decided by a Full Bench of this court on 18-1-1972. Brief facts which gave rise to the civil second appeal may first be noticed.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner, Ghulam Hassan, filed a suit for the recovery of possession of land measuring 1 kanal and 6 marlas situate in Tehsil Kishtwar. According to the plaintiff-petitioner, he entered into an agreement on 21st Chet, 1998 Bk. to sell the suit land to the defendants-respondents. He delivered the possession of the suit land in consequence of the agreement to the proposed vendee after receiving the consideration amount in full. It was stipulated between the parties that a sale deed would also be drawn up in respect of the sale of the suit land. However, no sale deed was executed and the possession of the defendants-respondents remained only permissive over the suit land. Plaintiffs case was that as no sale deed had been executed, he was entitled to take back the possession of the suit land from the defendants. The defendants-respondents, on the other hand, alleged that that they had held the land as owners for a period of over 12 years and had also perfected their title by prescription and that the plaintiff was, as such not entitled to take back the possession from them. He further asserted that the suit was time barred and was liable to be dismissed on that score.

3. The trial court, as well as the first appellate court, negatived the contention of the defendants-respondents and held that as the possession of the defendants-respondents was purely permissive, the plaintiff-petitioner was entitled to succeed in the suit and recover back the possession. It was further observed by both the courts that since the possession of the defendants was permissive their being in possession for a period of more than twelve years was immaterial.

4. Aggrieved, the defendants-respondents filed an appeal in this court. The appeal was originally heard by Shri Jaswant Singh J. (as his Lordship then was) sitting singly and being of the view that important questions of law were involved in the case. His Lordship referred the appeal to be heard by a larger Bench. Consequently, a Full Bench of this Court comprising of Shri S. M. F. Ali, Chief Justice (as his Lordship then was) Shri J. N. Bhat J. and Shri Jaswant Singh J. (as his Lordship then was) was constituted and the appeal was heard and disposed off by the various arguments raised before them, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the courts below and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. It was inter alia observed by their lordships of the Full Bench:

"The only point that has been argued before us is where the vendor had delivered possession of the property in dispute to the defendant and had received the entire consideration money and remained silent for a long period of 22 years, he will be estopped from recovering possession of the property even apart from the question of adverse possession. It is true that the question of adverse possession in this case does not arise because there has been no refusal on the part of the proposed vendor to execute the sale deed, but we are rather impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that as the plaintiff himself had given possession and received the entire consideration money, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud so as to recover possession from the defendants after such a long time."

5. It was further observed by the Bench:

"It is manifestly clear that where the plaintiff voluntarily executes a contract of sale puts the proposed vendee in possession of the property and receives the entire consideration money, there is no special equity in his favour to allow him to turn round and claim the property after a long time merely because the price of the property has increased. He cannot be allowed to repudiate the fiduciary obligation arising out of the contract nor can