M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The appeal is against the judgment of reversal. The plaintiffs suit being title suit No. 97/88 for declaration of right title, interest and possession has been decreed by the Munsif, Daltonganj, Palamau.

2. The appeal, filed by the defendant respondent being Title Appeal No. 4/92, the appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree reversed the judgment passed by the Munsif and dismissed the suit and allowed the appeal.

3. The aforementioned suit was instituted by the plaintiff in respect of upper half portion of house standing on Khas Mahal plot No. 227 bearing Khas Mahal holding No. 113 situated at Rahat Road, Daltonganj. The undisputed fact is that the suit property was purchased by joint family of which late Babu Brij Bihari Lal and Baveri Lal were members of the family. In the year 1952 a partition suit was instituted which was registered as partition suit No. 45/52 and in the said suit a decree for partition on the basis of compromise was passed and the suit property was allotted in the Takhta of the plaintiffs. They Jointly became the owners of the entire holding. The plaintiffs farther case is that the defendant is the own sisters son of plaintiff No. 1 who was the resident of Aurangabad. In 1956 he got employment in the local college as librarian and he had rib house of his own at Daltonganj. So he approached the plaintiff for allowing him to reside in the suit premises. Accordingly it is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant was permitted to occupy the premises. When the defendant was asked to vacated the premises he alleged to have avoided the same on one pretext or other which necessitated the filing of the suit.

4. The defendants case on the other hand, is that he is occupying the suit premises on his own right. According to the defendant the suit is barred by limitation and adverse possession. The defendant denied the title of the plaintiffs and took the stand that the suit property exclusively belongs to him and he has been occupying the same openly since last several years with his right title and interest with full knowledge of the plaintiff.

5. The trial Court framed following issues for consideration.

1. Is the suit as framed maintainable?

2. Have the plaintiffs valid cause of action for the suit?

3. Whether the plaintiffs have got exclusive right title and interest over the suit premises?

4. Whether the suit is barred by adverse possession?

5. Are the plaintiffs entitled to the reliefs claimed?

6. To what other relief or reliefs if any plaintiffs are entitled for?

6. After examining the entire documents filed by the parties and appreciating the evidence the trial Court decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff- appellant. The trial Court further disbelieved the case of the defendant that the suit property was gifted by his maternal grand father Brij Bihar Lal by virtue of oral gift. On the question of adverse possession the trial Court relied upon Exhibit I which is a document executed by the defendant at the time of his induction in the premises to continue to occupy the same by way of permissive possession. Finally the trial Court came to the conclusion that possession of the defendant is permissive possession and he has not perfected his title by adverse possession.

7. It appears that against the judgment of the trial Court the defendant preferred the aforementioned appeal which was finally heard by the 4th Additional District Jude Palamau at Daltonganj (in short the appellate Court). The appellate Court affirmed the finding of the trial Court with regard to title of the plaintiff over the suit property. The appellate Court further affirmed the finding of the trial Court on the issue of permissive possession of the defendant as he was inducted to occupy the premises with the permission of the plaintiffs. However, the appellate Court has taken a very typical view with regard to adverse possession. Para 24 of the appellate Court judgment is worth