Permissive possession, even without payment of rent, does not amount to adverse possession if the possessor acknowledges the owner's title and would have no objection to being ejected upon payment of any outstanding dues.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This is plaintiffs second appeal whose suit for possession of the agricultural land was decreed by the trial Court, but dismissed in appeal.

2. Bahadur Singh, son of Chanda Singh, was the owner of the suit land measuring 63 Kanals 17 Marlas. He was a resident of Malaya. Against Jawala Singh, deceased, and Hazara Singh, defendant No. 2, he i.e. Bahadur Singh obtained the decree dated August 1, 1953, on the basis of a compromise. In execution thereof, he obtained possession of the suit land from them. Thereafter, Bahadur Singh, again left for Malaya where he died leaving behind the plaintiffs as his heirs. After Bahadur Singh had obtained possession of the suit land in execution of the decree dated August 1, 1953, Jawala Singh, defendant, now represented by his legal representatives, and Hazara Singh, defendant No.2, again entered into possession of the suit land as tenants as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint. The plaintiffs filed the suit for possession of the suit land on the allegations that they being the heirs of Bahadur Singh, deceased, who were the owners of the suit land. Bahadur Singh while leaving India, put the defendants in permissive possession of the land, in dispute, and that the defendants had been paying rent to Bahadur Singh. After the death of Bahadur Singh, the defendants, taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs who are also the residents of Malaya, were unlawfully resisting their claim and were denying their status as the heirs of Bahadur Singh; hence the present suit. The defendants contested the suit. They denied the allegations of the plaintiffs and inter alia pleaded that they had become the owners of the suit land by adverse possession for more than twelve years and that the rights, if any, of Bahadur Singh in the suit land, stood extinguished. The trial Court found that the defendants had failed to prove their adverse possession over the suit land and, thus, they had failed to prove that the suit was time-barred. In view of this finding, the plaintiffs suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that Jawala Singh and Hazara Singh, defendants, had been in adverse possession of the suit land for more than 12 years before the filing of the suit and, therefore, they had become the owners thereof by adverse possession and that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by time. in view of this finding, the plaintiff suit was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, they have come up in this second appeal to this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence of the record. Admittedly, Bahadur Singh, got a decree for possession on the basis of the compromise against Jawala Singh and Hazara Singh, defendants, on August 1, 1953. Later on, the said Jawala Singh, filed the suit for declaration challenging the said decree. A certified copy of the plaint, dated January 8, 1955, is on the record, as Exhibit P. 12. The said suit was dismissed vide order dated October 18, 1955, copy Exhibit P. 15. The said suit was dismissed in view of the statement of the plaintiff dated October 18, 1955, copy Exhibit P. 14, wherein he had stated that his suit be dismissed. It is also not disputed now that in execution of the decree dated August 1, 1953, Bahadur Singh, decree-holder, got into possession of the suit land. According to the plaintiffs, later on, the suit land was again given on rent to the said defendants because Bahadur Singh was living outside India. Bahadur Singh also filed the application for ejectment against Jawala Singh and Hazara Singh before the Assistant Collector on the ground that he was a small landowner and that the tenants were in possession of more than five acres of land. Therein, Jawala Singh, defendant, made a statement before the Assistant Collector that both he and Hazara Singh, defendant, owned five Killa