Short Note : 1. The relevant facts are these Plaintiff's father-in-law Gopi was one of the four sons of Champat. The plaintiff is admittedly the sole surviving heir of Gopi. The defendants are the heirs of the other three sons of Champat. The plaintiff's case is that in a partition between the sons of Champat, the suit lands had fallen to the exclusive share of her father-in-law Gopi and she being the only surviving heir of Gopi has exclusive title to the suit lands. She further alleges that she had given the suit lands on batai to the defendants and under that contract the defendats were in permissive possession since about the year 1940. It is further alleged by her that the defendants denied her title by refusing to give any share in the crops of the year 1965-66, as a result of which the suit was filed for possession of these lands on 16-12-66. The defendants denied the plaintiff's title and also claimed adverse possession over the suit lands for more than 12 years prior to the date of the suit. Plain• tiff has lost in both the Courts below. 2. Held: The first argument or Shri D.M. Dhumadhikari, learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant is that the Courts below were wrong in recording a finding of defendant's adverse possession of over 12 years in the present case. He argues that there is no proof of an open assertion of hostile title by, the defendants which is necessary to support the finding of adverse possession. He relied on a decision in P.Lakshmi Reddy v. L.Lakshmi Reddy, AIR 1957 SC 314 . I am unable to accept this argument. The decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel dealt with a case of ouster of a co-owner by another co-owner. The observations in that decision relied on by the learned counsel are to be understood in the context in which they appear. The present is not a case of ouster of a co-owner. The plaintiff claimed exclusive title in her so that defendant's claim of adverse possession was not that of a co-owner, but of a stranger, Moreover, the plaintiff's claim of permissive possession of the defendents was based on the alleged contract of batai which has not been found to be proved by the Courts below. The plaintiff claimed exclusive title in her so that defendant's claim of adverse possession was not that of a co-owner, but of a stranger, Moreover, the plaintiff's claim of permissive possession of the defendents was based on the alleged contract of batai which has not been found to be proved by the Courts below. The only case setup being of permissive possession; it being not available to the plaintiff the obvious conclusion was that the defendent's possession was that of a stranger and not of co-owner in the circumstances of the present case. There is thus no defect in this finding of the Court below. AIR 1957 SC 314 , distinguished. Appeal dismissed.