Possession in a fiduciary relationship cannot be adverse, and permissive possession is not adverse. Adverse possession must be openly hostile to the knowledge of the other party.

1. The present Second Appeal is preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court which has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

2. When the plaintiff/respondent herein has filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the defendants/appellants herein on the ground that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the land in question since the plaintiff/respondent herein has purchased the suit property under a duly executed registered sale deed dated 14.5.1964 and only in the course of her possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the plaintiff had permitted her brother-Balu Chettiar under leave and licence to put up a residential hut so as to stay there in the year 1978 and that Balu Chettiar-plaintiff's brother agreed to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property as and when required by the plaintiff/respondent herein. After the death of Balu Chettiar in the year 1984, the defendants/appellants herein were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property only on the basis of the leave and licence granted to late Balu Chettiar. The defendants/appellants herein are being close relatives of the plaintiff/respondent herein, the plaintiff did not disturb their possession from the suit property. But, however, when a notice dated 13.6.1986-Ex.A2 was issued by the plaintiff to the appellants herein asking them to deliver vacant possession, even after the receipt of the said notice-dated 13.6.1986-Ex.A.2, they refused to reply to the said notice. Subsequently, when the second notice dated 17.5.1988-Ex.A6 was sent to the defendants, after receipt of the said notice, a reply dated 29.5.88-Ex.A7 was sent by the defendants to the plaintiff/respondent herein denying the very ownership and title of the suit property. The defendants placed their case that the suit property was purchased by late Balu Chettiar in the name of sister-plaintiff and from the date of purchase, Balu Chettiar was in possession of the property by putting up a hut and after his death, the defendants continued in possession of the suit property and hence, they perfected their title by adverse possession by staying continuously to the knowledge of the plaintiff for more than the statutory period. But, the trial Court by accepting the claim of adverse possession pleaded by the defendants and also holding that the plaintiff failed to mention the extent of boundaries of the suit property, dismissed the suit.

3. As against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, when appeal was filed by the plaintiff/respondent before the first appellate Court, accepting the case of the plaintiff/respondent herein, the learned first appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

4. Aggrieved by the said reasoning given in the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the defendants/appellants herein have come before this Court by preferring the present Second Appeal raising the following substantial questions of law.

"1.Whether the lower appellate court erred in law and misdirected itself in granting the decree in favour of the respondent when the appellants have acquired title to the suit property and the building situated herein by adverse possession by virtue of their open, long and continuous possession and enjoyment thereof for more than the statutory period adverse to that of the respondent especially when the respondent herein has failed to prove the theory of permissive occupation ?

(2) Are not the findings rendered by the lower appellate court in para 11 of the judgment in A.S.No.43/2005 perverse, non est in law and rendered on a total non-application of mind much to the prejudice of the appellants?

5. (i) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants while advancing his arguments contended that when the plaintiff before the trial Court has clearly admitted the case of the defendants that they were in possession and enjoyme