Adverse possession can extinguish a party's title, and possession must amount to legal possession to claim ownership.

1. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that he is the owner of the property in suit consisting of two houses. He states that the cloud on his title is a claim by defendants 2, 3 and 4 against defendant 1, Budhabai in which they have attached this property as hers and brought it to sale. The facts are as follows: One Sheosahai died on 1st January 1917, leaving behind a widow, defendant 1, Budhabai. Before his death he executed a document, Ex. P-4, dated 24th June 1911, called a tabniyatnama on which the plaintiff now founds his title. The plaintiff states that he was fraudulently kept from knowledge of this document by Budhabai and that he did not come to know about its existence until the year 1928. But of that later. When Sheosahai died the plaintiff was living with Budhabai and was a minor, being then about 14 years of age. Budhabai was in possession and managed the estate along with an agent Shankerlal. She immediately set up title in herself and applied for mutation in her name. This was granted on 4th January 1918. Thereafter the plaintiff instituted an application for probate on the basis of a will which purported to leave all the property to the plaintiff reserving only a right of maintenance for Budhabai. This suit was instituted in the year 1920, but it was held that the will was a forgery and the suit was accordingly dismissed in the following year. The plaintiff states that he was thereupon (1921) turned out of the house by Budhabai and that he did not regain possession until 1932.

2. The plaintiff had evidently become involved in debts by this time and he states that he was obliged to apply to the insolvency Court for adjudication as an insolvent. The application was made in the year 1922 but the plaintiff was discharged in the year 1928. During this time however Budhabai began running up debts and was sued by her creditors. One set of creditors filed civil Suit No. 30 of 1926 against her and another set Civil Suit No. 35 of 1929. The houses in suit were put up to sale and auctioned in the year 1929. Then the plaintiff instituted a suit as a pauper claiming these properties. It was held however that he was not a pauper, but it appears that the auction sale had by then been set aside on a technical ground, and the plaintiff states that Budhabai, seeing that he had an unchallengeable title under the tabniyatnama (Ex. F-4), let him into possession in 1932. It was therefore unnecessary for him to proceed with the suit. A couple of years later these houses were again put up to sale in execution of the decrees obtained against Budhabai and they were sold on 3rd May 1934 and purchased by defendant; 4. The sale was confirmed on 19th January 1935. Therefore the plaintiff files the present suit for a declaration that he is the owner. The suit was launched on 24th July 1935.

3. In so far as the plaintiff's title is founded on Ex. p. 4, an interesting question of interpretation arises on which it is possible to take two views. The first Court, taking one view, held that the document did not amount to a will, and, as no adoption could be effected by the mere execution of a document, it held that the deed was ineffective to pass title. The lower appellate Court took the other view and held that the document amounted to a will in the plaintiff's favour. A number of cases were cited in argument in support of these two interpretations. On the one side were cited Lali v. Murlidhar,1906 28 ILR(All) 488 Karamsi Madhowji v. Karsandas Hatha,1899 23 ILR(Bom) 271 confirming , Karsandas Natha v. Ladkavahu,1988 12 ILR(Bom) 185 Fanindra Deb v. Rajeshwar Das,1885 11 ILR(Cal) 463 at Abbu v. Kuppammal, 1893 16 ILR(Mad) 355. On the other side were cited Krishna Rao v. Sundara Siva Rao, 1931 AIR(PC) 109 Subbarayar v. Subbammal, 1898 21 ILR(Mad) 497 and Nidhoomoni Debya v. Saroda Pershad, 1876 3 IndApp 253 None of these cases is exactly in point and an elaborate analysis of them would be necessary to distinguish and reconcile them. We do no