Permissive possession of a property does not amount to adverse possession, and a suit for possession of immovable property is not barred by limitation unless the defendant has been in adverse possession for more than 12 years.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- Defendant No. 1, the main contestant of the plaintiff s case, has preferred this appeal against the confirming decision of the court below declaring the plaintiffs title to the suit house and directing the defendant No. 1 to vacate possession of the suit house or to be evicted therefrom through court.

2. The suit house admittedly belonged to Ramakrishna Behera, the father of the plaintiff and the paternal grandfather of defendant no. 1, Ramakrishna had three sons, Balabhadra, Kalia (father of defendant no. 1) and Laxman, Kalia and Laxman executed a registered sale deed (Ext. 1) on 10-12-46 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 300/-. As defendant no. 1, the appellant herein, was then a minor, the document was executed on his behalf by Kalia as the father-guardian of the minor. Kalia died within a short time after the execution of the sale deed.

3. The plaintiff a case, in short, is that Balabhadra died issueless prior to the year 1946. Thereafter Kalia and Laxman sold the suit house described in schedule A of the plaint to the plaintiff for Rs. 300/- as per the registered sale deed Ext. 1 dated 10-12-1946, and put the plaintiff in possession of the suit house. After the execution of the sale deed Kalia stayed in another house constructed by him. On the request of the relations, the plaintiff permitted Laxman to remain in the suit house for some time as the plaintiff then was living with her husband at Kharagpur where he was employed then. Laxman died in 1969 and thereafter his widow Kamala went away to her father s house, However, the plaintiff permitted defendant No. 1, the son of Laxman, to remain in the house. After the death of the plaintiffs husband she came back to her said house and got the suit house mutated in her name in the municipal records in 1966. Subsequently during the Survey and Settlement operations, defendant no, 1 set up claim for the suit house, and in 1969 the Settlement authorities, in spite of the plaintiffs objection, directed joint recording of the name of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 in respect of the said house. The plaintiff has prayed for recovery of possession of the suit house from defendant no, 1 and for, other ancillary reliefs.

4. The case of defendant no. 1 in the written statement, in short, is that -

The sale deed Ext. 1 is a sham and nominal document; no consideration passed under that deed and there was no legal necessity for the execution of the said deed; Balabhadra died in the year 1950 after the execution of the sale deed; the sale is void as Balabhadra had not joined in the said sale; the possession of the suit house had never been delivered to the plaintiff; the sons of Ramakrishna were all along in possession of the suit house till their death; after their death the defendants are residing in the said house in their own right; and that the plaintiffs case of permissive possession of the suit house is false. Defendants 3 and 4 who were later on added as defendants in the suit simply adopted the written statement filed by defendant No. 1.

5. The trial court field that the sale deed Ext. 1 was not a sham and nominal document; it was executed for consideration and legal necessity and it had been acted upon by delivery of possession Laxman and defendant no. 1 were in permissive occupation of the suit house and they had not acquired any title to the same by adverse possession Balabhadra died issueless before 1946 and thereafter Kalia and Laxman sold the suit house to the plaintiff on 10-12-46; and that the plaintiff lived in the suit house till she was forcibly driven out of the same by defendant no. 1 in the year 1971. On the above findings the plaintiffs prayer for recovery of possession of the suit house from the defendants was allowed and the suit was decreed.

6. The appellate Judge in para 10 of his judgment specifically states that he agrees with all findings of the trial court which are unassailable and on the said findings and conclusions, he has confirmed the d