JUDGMENT M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. The suit out of which this second appeal arose was for declaration of title and recovery of property. According to the plaintiff, the property was given to the 1st defendant's family for rendering service in the Mankompu temple under management of the plaintiff. Ext. D is a lease deed dated 14-3-1103 executed by a karnavan of the 1st defendant's family in favour of the 2nd defendant who has been examined as P.W. 5. It recites that the property has been given to the demisor's family as a Service Inam. Ext. A, an Udambadi dated 8-2-1107 is by the succeeding karnavan who was the elder brother of the 1st defendant. Title to the property is acknowledged therein as a grant for Kazhakam (piper's) services to be rendered in the aforesaid Mankompu temple. The plaintiff bases his claim to recover the property on discontinuance of the service by the 1st defendant. And, the 1st defendant claimed the property to be ancestral to his family and to have been in possession of the family from early days so that the title, even if any, of the plaintiff had been lost by the adverse possession of his family. The courts below have decreed the suit. Hence this second appeal. 2. Both the parties have only the Land Records kept by the revenue authorities to evidence their title. The Thandaper shows title in the plaintiff-Society, and the Land Register in the possession of the 1st defendant's family. The admissions made by the two prior karnavans in the 1st defendant's family in Exts. D and A that they were holding the property in remuneration for services at the temple explain and reconcile the possession of the 1st defendant's family with title in the plaintiff. The fact that the property has been described as service inam does not by itself connote that it is an absolute 'inam' in the sense of a gift absolute to the 1st defendant's family. Where the grant was not for past services only but was conditioned by continuance of service the grantor can resume the property on discontinuance of the service. See Kamakhya Narain Singh v. Abhiman Singh ( AIR 1934 PC 182 ) and Narayanan Namboodiri v. Raman Namboodiripad (AIR 1952 TC 148). Where the grant was not for past services only but was conditioned by continuance of service the grantor can resume the property on discontinuance of the service. See Kamakhya Narain Singh v. Abhiman Singh ( AIR 1934 PC 182 ) and Narayanan Namboodiri v. Raman Namboodiripad (AIR 1952 TC 148). That the 1st defendant was recalcitrant is patent even in his written statement in the case where he disowned any liability to perform service. The claim of a prescriptive title by him appears fantastic and has been rightly repelled by the courts below. The possession with the 1st defendant's family was obviously permissive and cannot become adverse except on denial of the grantors title brought home to the grantor. Possession with a legal origin can seldom be adverse. See Abdulla v. Kunhammad ( 1959 KLJ 1011 ) Krishnan Nambiar v. Ramunni Nambiar (1961 KLJ 186) and Kathaval Sudaly v. Arumugha Panicker ( 1958 KLJ 1178 ). 'Possession is never considered adverse, declared the Privy Council in AIR 1914 PC 243 , 'if it can be referred to a lawful title'. No such case has been made out by the 1st defendant in this case. In the circumstances, the concurrent findings entered by the courts below have only to be accepted. 3. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.