( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under the Letters Patent of this Court from the judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge in a second appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff, Yasin Mohammad, has perfected his title by adverse possession.

( 2 ) THE facts, in short, are that the lands in dispute comprising 39. 31 acres in village Sivania, Tahsil Sehore, originally belonged to Nannu and Atmaram. These lands were sold in auction for recovery of arrears of land revenue. On May 11, 1944, Ahsan Beg purchased those lands in the auction sale. The plaintiff resisted delivery of possession on the ground that on April 25, 1943, he had purchased the suit lands from Nannu and Atmaram, through their guardian.

( 3 ) THERE were proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, Which ended in favour of Ahsan Beg. Even then he could not get possession as a matter of fact.

( 4 ) ON March 5, 1946, a suit was instituted by Yasin Mohammad for cancellation of the revenue sale. That was Civil Suit No. 17 of 1949. That suit was, however, dismissed on March 31, 1949, on the ground that the sale in his favour was after attachment of the lands. On May 17, 1952 the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed. On may 21, 1953 his second appeal was also dismissed by the Judicial Commissioner, bhopal.

( 5 ) IN the meanwhile, Ahsan Beg, the auction-purchaser, had brought a suit for possession against Yashin Mohammad. That suit was Civil Suit No. 28 of 1954. On august 30, 1954 a decree for possession Was passed in favour of Ahsan Beg. An appeal was preferred against the decree, but it was dismissed on February 1, 1956. The decree for possession in favour of Ahsan Beg thus became final. Execution of this decree was taken out by Ahsan Beg on July 31, 1958. Objections filed by Yasin Mohammad were dismissed. Aggrieved by that order Yasin mohammad preferred an appeal on December 1, 1958. That appeal Was dismissed on October 29, 1959. A second appeal preferred by him was also dismissed; eventually on September 17, 1960 the appellants were put in possession in execution of the decree which had been passed in Civil Suit No. 28 of 1954.

( 6 ) IT must now be mentioned that in the meanwhile Yasin Mohammad had brought a suit (No. 70 of 1956) claiming protection of his possession as a sub-tenant. That suit was dismissed. An appeal preferred against the decree of dismissal was also dismissed on February 24, 1959.

( 7 ) THEREAFTER on November 3, 1959, the present suit from which this appeal arises was instituted by Yasin Mohammad against the appellants. He claimed a declaration of his title as to have been perfected by adverse possession. On january 22, 1962 the trial Court dismissed the suit. An appeal was preferred by him which was allowed on September 7, 1963 and a decree was passed in the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Against the appellate decree a second appeal was preferred by the defendants but the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed that appeal on April 23, 1968. He, however, declared that this was a fit case for letters Patent Appeal. Hence this appeal.

( 8 ) THE appellants (defendants) are heirs of Ahsan Beg auction purchaser. The respondents are legal representatives of the plaintiff Yasin Mohammad, who died during the pendency of the present appeal.

( 9 ) IT has been held by the first appeal Court and the learned Single Judge that the plaintiff was in adverse possession from 1944; and that in spite of the fact that on june 9, 1952, Ahsan Beg brought the suit (No. 28 of 1954) for possession, the adverse possession of the plaintiff was not arrested. In the result it has been held that in spite of Suit No. 28 of 1954 (supra) having been brought by Ahsan Beg and a decree having been passed in his favour, Yasin Mohammad's adverse possession continued and he perfected his title during the pendency of that (auctionpurchaser's)suit.

( 10 ) IT is contended for the appellants that the decree of the first appeal Court and of the