Permissive possession cannot be converted into adverse possession unless it is proved that the person in possession asserted an adverse title to the property to the knowledge of the owner for a period of twelve years or more.

P. K. MOHANTI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of the suit lands described in Schedule 'b' of the plaint.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs belong to village Kudarsahi in the district of Singhbhum in Bihar while the defendants belong to village Brahmanpose in the district of Mayurbhanj in Orissa. Distance between the two villages is about 12 miles. The suit lands are situate at the village of the defendants. The case for the plain tiffs was that their forefathers finding it difficult to cultivate the suit lands and being unable to carry paddy from Orissa to Bihar on account of Control Orders imposing restrictions on movement of paddy let out the suit lands to Chandra Mohan Giri, the father of defendants 1 and) 2 on Thika basis on a cash rent of Rs. 80/ -. Chandra Mohan Giri cultivated the suit lands as a lessee till his death which occurred in January, 1965. He was then in arrears of cash rent for the year 1964-65. So the plaintiff No. 1 Baruna Giri and late Krutibas Giri, the father of plaintiffs 2 and 5 and husband of plaintiffs 6 and 7, requested defendant No. 1 to pay up the arrears and continue cultivation of the suit lands on Thika basis. Defendant No. 1 having refused to pay, the plaintiffs decided to resume cultivation and accordingly they ploughed the suit lands. But subsequently on 6-5- 1966 when some of the plaintiffs went to sow paddy the defendants 1 and 3 ac companied by a large number of men committed rioting. During the occurrence Krutibas Giri sustained fatal injuries which resulted in his death. As the defendants did not give up possession, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

( 3 ) THE defendants denied, the plaint allegations and contended that the forefathers of the plaintiffs entered into a contract to sell the suit lands to Chandra Mohan Giri, who was the manager of the joint family of the defendants, for a consideration of Rs. 400/- and executed a deed of contract on 23-3-1936 and delivered possession of the same on receipt of an advance of Rs. 200/- towards the consideration money. On 9-12-1936 Baruna Giri and Krutibas Giri received the balance consideration of Rs. 200/-but as their co-sharers were residing in the district of Singhbhum and were not available at a time the sale deed could not be executed and registered. Since 23-3-1936 the defendants and their predecessors-in-interest have been possessing the suit lands as of right openly and adversely to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Late Chandra Mohan Giri filed Money Suit No. 70/43-44 against Siropani Giri for recovery of a loan of Rupees 300/- and obtained a decree on 30-10-1943. Siropani filed a petition (Ext. E) on 12-2-1947 before the S. D. O. Panchpir alleging therein that Chandra Mohan Giri was in possession of the suit lands on the basis of a usufructuary mortgage bond and that although the loan had been paid up he had not delivered possession of the same. This petition was registered as Raj Case No. 446/1946 47. Chandra Mohan Giri filed a counter (Ext. A/2) contending that there was a contract for sale of the suit lands for a sum of Rupees 400/- out of which an advance of Rs. 200/ was paid on the date of the contract, that is, 23-3-1936 and the balance was paid on 9-12-1936 and that he was in possession of the suit lands by virtue of the contract. The S. D. O. directed the parties to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. Upon these allegations the defendants contended that they had acquired title to the suit lands by adverse possession.

( 4 ) THE trial court, on a consideration of the evidence led by the parties, disbelieved, the plaintiffs' case, and held that the defendants have been in possession of the suit lands since 1936 by virtue of the contract, that they claimed hostile title since 1946 to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and by the date of the suit they had perfected their title by adverse possession. Upon such findings the pl