Possession under an agreement to sell is permissive and not adverse, and the possession turns adverse only when something happens to indicate that the prospective vendee does not acknowledge the title of the vendor.

( 1 ) THIS is defendants' second appeal, arising out of the Appellate Judgement and Decree dated 22nd August, 1978, passed by the District Judge, Mandsaur, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 44-A of 1976, thereby, confirming the trial Court's Judgement land Decree with slight modification in annual mesne profits, which has been reduced from 1500/- to 1000/ -.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF/respondent brought a suit, based on title for possession of agricultural land, bearing survey, Nos. 990 and 1000, admeasuring 5. 662 Hactares, situated in village Barkheda Gangasa, tahsil Garoth, District Mandsaur. The original defendant Hajeri Khan, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff/respondent's mother to purchase the suit land. It was in pursuance to this agreement that he continued to remain in possession of the suit land and cultivate the same on 'adh-batai'.

( 3 ) ON 21-8-1941, Hajari Khan, moved an application (Exhibit P-3) before the competent revenue authority known as 'suba' praying for permission for sale of the suit land in his favour, as such permission was required to be obtained under Section 45 of Indore Land Revenue and Tenancy (Act No. 1 of 1931), but the same was refused vide order dated 5-11-1941 (Exhibit P-2), because the vendor, Hasan Khan was then a minor.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff/respondent moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer Garoth, for resumption of suit land but the a same was dismissed, on 24-8-1962, (as has been averred in the plaint) on the ground that he (plaintiff failed to establish that Hajan Khan was his sub-tenant. Against this refusal order, an appeal was preferred before the Collector, but the same was also dismissed. The Additional Commissioner, Ujjain, in Second Appeal No. 170 of 62-63, confirmed the Lower Court's order vide his order dated 16-9-1963 (Exhibit P-6 ).

( 5 ) IN the meanwhile, Hajari Khan, the defendant, also brought a suit for declaration of his title in respect of suit agricultural land, which was dismissed in default on 29-7-1974 by order Exhibit P-4. Thereafter, plaintiff/respondent filed the present suit on 6-9-1974, for possession of the suit lands, and recovery of mesne profits thereof at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per annum and also mesne profits for last three years, immediately preceding filing of the suit.

( 6 ) PLAINTIFF/respondent's case in short was that, at the time of agreement, he was a minor, Hajari Khan, original defendant, had agreed on 'adh-batai' and used to give the same to his mother. Hajari Khan's possession was in pursuance to an agreement to sell the suit land, but this sale was not permitted by the Suba, where permission was required by law. then prevailing the defendant never showed his reading and willingness to abide by the contract, nor called upon the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement, even after his attaining majority. Suit filed by Hajan Khan for declaration of his title was also dismissed on 29-7-1974. Plaintiff/respondent, therefore, brought this suit based on title claiming possession of the suit land, as also mesne-profits at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per annum. ( 7 ) HAJARI Khan died long after filing of the written statement. His defence was that the land in question was purchased by his father in 1935, for Rs. 104/-, and he was put in possession thereof. This amount of Rs. 100/- was paid to the plaintiffs mother, but as the required permission was refused, possession remained with him, on the basis of the alleged sale, which on the expiry of 12 years, resulted in perfection of his title by operation of the doctrine of adverse possession. He denied the case of 'adh-batai', as pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent, and contended that as the agreement to sale itself was void, there was no question of its specific performance. It was also contended that the suit was barred by time, and alternatively pleaded that in case, Hajari Khan, the defendant was held to be an 'adh-bataidar' he became Bhumiswami, in view of Section 190 of