1. The present second appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 5.4.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Kukshi in Civil Suit No. 44A/2000, by which the suit as well as the counter claim has been dismissed.

2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that one Narayan was the owner of the suit property and an agreement took place in respect of sale of suit property on 13.1.1978 and it was an oral agreement. The suit property is a house. Thereafter, the agreement was reduced in writing on 8.4.1978. As the terms and conditions of the agreement were violated, a legal notice (Exhibit P-2) on behalf of Narayan to Mishrilal, the present appellant/plaintiff, was served terminating the agreement.

Mishrilal preferred a civil suit praying for injuction in the matter and a counter-claim was preferred by Narayan, the owner of the property, claiming possession of the suit property. The suit as well counter-claim both were dismissed and an appeal was preferred by Narayan against dismissal of the counter-claim, as he was claiming possession of the suit property.

3. The undisputed facts also reveal that Narayan was the titleholder of the property and now the legal heirs of Narayan are on record. The appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.2006 has allowed the appeal and has held that Narayan is entitled for possession of the suit property.

4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has argued before this Court that the appellate Court has erred in law and facts in holding that Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is attracted, whereas in the present case, Article 66 is attracted. His contention is that the notice terminating the agreement (Exhibit P-2) was issued on 19.6.1981. He has further argued that the counter-claim was filed on 5.12.2000, i.e., after expiry of of 12 years, and therefore, in light of Article 66 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the counter-claim was rightly dismissed and the appellate Court could not have allowed the counter-claim taking into account Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

This Court while admitting the present second appeal has framed the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in allowing the counter-claim preferred by the respondent with aid of Article 66 of the Indian Limitation Act?”

Learned counsel for the parties have fairly stated before this Court that there is a typographical error in the substantial question of law and in place of Articles 66, Article 65 should be substituted.

Resultantly, the following substantial question of law has to be answered by this Court:

“Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in allowing the counter claim preferred by the respondent with aid of Article 65 of the Indian Limitation Act?

5. In the present case, as stated earlier, the respondents are the titleholder of the property and there is no dispute about it. Articles 65 and 66 of the schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 read as under:

65.	For possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title.	Twelve years	When the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
Explanation – For the purposes of this article:
	(a) where the suit is by a remainderman, a reversioner (other than a landlord) or a devisee, the possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only when the estate of the remainderman, reversioner or devisee, as the case may be, falls into possession.
	(b) where the suit is by a Hindu or Muslim entitled to the possession of immovable property on the death of a Hindu or Muslim female, the possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only when the female dies.
	(c) where the suit is by a purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree when the judgment-debt