Short Note : In the present case there is no dispute that the title over the suit lands belonged to the plaintiffs. Lakshmanprasad, defendant, contested the suit on the basis that when his son Kantiprasad was married to the daughter of Dadanram (plaintiff No.2) half of the suit lands were given as dowry in the form of gift and later on the remaining half were also gifted in the year 1952. Thus Lakshmanprasad remained in possession of the entire suit lands since then. He therefore, pleaded that the plaintiffs have no right or title left over the suit property and as such their suit was liable to be dismissed. Lakshmanprasad also pleaded alternative case claiming title on the basis of adverse possession over the suit lands. Held : In my opinion, on the findings arrived at by the trial Court, the plaintiffs could not have been non-suited, even if they failed to prove that Lakshmanprasad did not enter the suit lands with their express permission. The reason is obvious as the gifts were held not valid by the lower appellate Court also, therefore, the defendant could only succeed by proving adverse possession. The finding of the trial Court that possession of Lakshmanprasad was not adverse would not have been brushed aside lightly and the suit of the plaintiffs dismissed because the possession of Lakshmanprasad was not with their express consent. Even, if Lakshmanprasad or his heirs be in possession of the suit lands; but their possession being not hostile they could not perfect their title by adverse possession, as such plaintiffs' title over the suit lands was not extinguished. Looking to the close relationship of the parties, the possession of Lakshmanprasad could not be adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs even if he may be in actual possession, unless some overt-act to show hostile possession to the knowledge of the real owner was proved, which was not done. In the circumstances as the defendants failed to prove their title over the suit lands even on the basis of their adverse possession, as differing from the lower appellate Court I hold that the suit of the plaintiffs was wrongly dismissed. Appeal allowed.