CHANDRAKANTHARAJ J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14-3-1986 in Original Suit No. 165/1983 on the file of the Civil Judge at Bellary. ( 2 ) IN the course of this judgment, we will refer to the parties by the rank assigned to them in the trial court. Appellants before us are defendants 5 and 6. They are said to be brothers. However, it was defendant-5 who purchased the suit property from defendants 1, 2 and 3 on 27-5-1971 for consideration. Thereafter, defendant-6 purchased the property from defendant-5 by a deed of sale on 18-9-1973. Plaintiff is the first respondent in this appeal. Plaintiff's mother and 3 other brothers were defendants 1 to 4. , in the trial court. ( 3 ) PLAINTIFF brought the suit for partition and separate possession of his share (1/5) in the suit property, a residential house situated in Ballary Town. He pleaded that the suit schedule proparty was the property of his father- sattar Sab and on his death, he acquired 1/5th interest in the suit property as owner. He further averred that soon after the death of his father, he had to leave Beilary and work at Torangal and hospet, that he occasionally came back to Ballary and foand that the other members of the family, namely, defendants 1 to 3 were residing in the outhouse and some strangers were in occupation of the main premir. es. On enquiry, learnt that they were only tenants who occupied the main premises. Defendant-4 also was working for his livelihood outside Bellary at Torangal and hospet and was not aware of the facts which they learnt later on enquiry. It is stated by ths plaintiff that in or about 1982, when they came back to settle down at Bellary, they discovered the same state of affairs and when pressed for partition, defendants 1, 2 and 3 informed that partition had to bo postponed for sometime as the p-operty had been mortgaged and the loan had to be cleared. Sespeeling some mischief, plaintiff and defendant-4 obtained information from the Sub-Registrar's Office and also obtained certified copies of the sale deed executed infavour of defendant-5 by defendants 1, 2 and 3 and the sale by defendant 5 infavour of defendant-6. Sespeeling some mischief, plaintiff and defendant-4 obtained information from the Sub-Registrar's Office and also obtained certified copies of the sale deed executed infavour of defendant-5 by defendants 1, 2 and 3 and the sale by defendant 5 infavour of defendant-6. Therefore, they filed the suit for possession of their interest which plaintiff contended, had not been transferred by the sale deeds in question. Declaration of their right, title and inteiest in the suit schedule property was also prayed for. The suit was filed on 21-10-1983 after a lawyer's notice had been earlier issued. ( 4 ) DEFENDANT-6 filed his written statement, which was adopted by defendant-5. He contended that the suit house was owned by one khatijabi who wes the deceased first wife of Sattar sab, father of defendants 2 to 4. Defendants 1 to 4 and the plaintiff are not legal heirs of Khatijabi and as such, they are not entitled to the relief sought. it is further stated by defendant-6 that defendants 1 to 3 were not at all residing jointly in the suit house aftar the death of Sattar Sab. On the other hand, the suit house was in occupation of tenants. Since the purchase by defendant-5 of the suit schedule premises on 27-5-1971, he had perfected title to the suit schedule property by adverse possession. Plaintiff and defendant-4 returned to Bellary at the end of March, 1982 and started residing with defendants 1 to 3 and began to make false and unjust claims in order to defeat his title to the suit house which was never in the possession of the legal heirs of khatijabi. He further averred in the written statement that the suit was filed 12 years after the death of the Abdul sattar Sab and therefore, it was barred by time. Even prior to the first sale deed dated 27-5-1971 in favour of defendant 5, defendants 1 to 3 were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same, namely the suit property, adversely to the claim of piaintiff and defendant-4. Even prior to the first sale deed dated 27-5-1971 in favour of defendant 5, defendants 1 to 3 were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same, namely the suit property, adversely to the claim of piaintiff and defendant-4. That from 27-5-1971 to 189-1973 deiendant-5 was in possession and enjoyment of the suit house as owner and from 18-9-1973, onwards, defendant-6 had been in possession and enjoyment ot the same as ths rightful owner and adversely to the claim of plaintiff and defendant-4 and to their knowledge, and therefore, he had perfected his title by adverse possession, ( 5 ) ON such pleadings as many as 5 issues were framed. We will refer to only issue No. 4 on which alone arguments were addressed in this Court. It is as follows : - "whether defendants 5 and 6 have perfected their title by adverse possession. " ? we may state here the undisputed or admitted facts. That Sattar Sab was the father of plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. Defendant-1 is the surviving wife of sattar Sab. Defendants 1 to 3 sold, by a deed of sale Ex. P-1 on 27-5-1971, the suit property to defendant-5. Subsequently defendant-5 sold to defendant-6 the suit property. There is no separata written statement filed by defendant-5, as by a memo, he adopted the written statement filed by defendant-6. ( 6 ) THE argument advanced before the trial court in regard to the issue extracted above was to the effect that plantiff and deffendant-4 not being in possession on the date of the execution of Ex. P-1, defendants 1, 2 and 3 having executed the safe deed at Ex. P-1, parted with possession as recited in the sale deed in favour of defendant-5 and therefore, defendant-5 was in possession and enjoyment of the suit proparty from 27- 5-1971. The suit having bean filed on 21-10-1983 which was beyond 12 years was birred by time and in any event, the title of defendant-5 and defendant-6 had been perfected by adverse possession. ( 7 ) WE must, at this stage mention that among the witnesses examined for the plaintiff and the documents marked as well as the witnesses examined for the defendant and the documents marked, defendants-5's oral evidence is of some importance. ( 7 ) WE must, at this stage mention that among the witnesses examined for the plaintiff and the documents marked as well as the witnesses examined for the defendant and the documents marked, defendants-5's oral evidence is of some importance. Defendant-5 has, in the course of his cross-examination admitted that he was put in actual possession of the suit house subsequent to the execution of Ex. P. 1 only in november, 197t. Thereafter, he had inducted some tenants and had been collecting the rents till he sold the house to defendant-6. In other words, the trial judge came to the conclusion that possession and enjoyment of defendant- 5 commenced only in November, 1971 and therefore, the suit filed in October, 1983 was within the 12 years period. As such, suit filed by the plaintiff was in time, as there was no cu ter of his right, title and interest in the suit property. ( 8 ) MR. C. M. Desai, learned Counsel pressing this question of law in this court, contended that having regard to the undisputed recital in the sale deed, possession and enjoyment must be held to have commenced from 27-5-1971 even as against the co-owners, namely plaintiff and defendant-4, who are not parties to the sale deed at Ex. P-1. He placed reliance upon the decision of the madras High Court in the case of 7 PR. Palania Filial and ors v Amjath Ibrahim rowther and another ( AIR 1942 Mad. 622 ). in the said case, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court held that possession to be adverse must be adquate in continuity, publicity and extent to show that it is adverse to competitor-Property held by Mahomedan family-Some Coiowners usufructurily mortgaging specific items of property-possession of mortgage becomes adverse to other members of the family from moment of his entry into possession and not from the date of ouster to their knowledge. ( 9 ) AS a proposition of law, the correctness of the ruling of the Madras high Court cannot be disputed. The common fact between the case of the madras High Court and the case on hand is that both deal with Mahamedan families who owned the property. ( 9 ) AS a proposition of law, the correctness of the ruling of the Madras high Court cannot be disputed. The common fact between the case of the madras High Court and the case on hand is that both deal with Mahamedan families who owned the property. The importance of the point of law arising out of the ruling is in the expression entry into possession' The facts of the case in the Madras case were such that the co-owners who contested the alienation by way of usufructuary mortgage of certain lands were held to have knowledge of the actual possession and cultivation by the mortgagee as it could be seen by them, if they had rot closed their eyes. But in the present case on hand, the plea of the plaintiff was that he was staying away from Bellary and had been mislead that the persons in occupation of the suit house were tenants. The fact of the saie had been withheld from him. in fact, it would be useful to advert in this context that a suggestion put that Ex. D-2, the second sale deed in favour of defendant-b had been attested by the plaintiff was denied by him and the defendants did not pursue the matter further. Therefore, co-owners not being the residents of Bellary normally at the relevant time, it cannot be said that there was ouster of their rights and that they had knowledge of the same. ( 10 ) ADDED to this, defendant-5's own admission that he entered possession only in November, 1971 went to prove that the suit had been brought within 12 years and the period required for perfecting title by adverse possession had also not expired. ( 11 ) SIMILAR is the reliance placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Konnan Saku of Moothedathu and anr. v Kalyani Parvathi Amma and ors. (A. I. R. 1963 Kerala P. 248 ). in the said case, the learned Single Judge of that High Court came to the same conclusion as the Madras High Court had. Therefore, for the same reasons, we are of the opinion that this case is not appliceble to the facts of the present case, on hand. Similar is the case decided by the Patna High Court in khato Lal Dass and another v Md. Therefore, for the same reasons, we are of the opinion that this case is not appliceble to the facts of the present case, on hand. Similar is the case decided by the Patna High Court in khato Lal Dass and another v Md. Jahiruddin Babar and ors (AIR 1984 Patna P. 239 ). The actual possession of the property in question in those cases had been given to the stranger's hand and that could be seen from the evidence of co-owners who questioned the alienation. Therefore, the courts had no option but to hold in those cases that adverse possession had conferred title on the strangers or that there was ouster of the rights of the co-owners. ( 12 ) IT is well settled that persons who plead perfecting of title by adverse possession must plead specifically the date from which their possession meaning actual possession or constructive possession which, amounts to actual possession (like purchaser of a tenanted property collecting rents) had been hostile and adverse till the date of suit or till the plaintiff questioned their right, title and interest. Therefore, we cannot agree with the learned Counsel that the trial court was in error in holding that the defendants had not perfected their title by adverse possession. ( 13 ) A feeble attempt was made to argue one more point that there was no issue framed as to the ownership of the property claimed by late Sattar Sab. We do not think it has anything to do with the result of the suit. There was no dispute that Sattar Sab survived Khatijabi who was said to have been the owner of the property. Whether the property was purchased in the capacity of benamidar or not, after her death, as the husband he had the title and that title passed on to his sons and widow (the second wife) who are none other than the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4. Therefore, non-framing of a specific issue has not prejudiced the defendants in any manner. As held by the Supreme court in Naghubai v Shyama Rao (AIR 1956 SCP 593 ). Parties have led evidence on that question and a finding has been recorded. Therefore, non-framing of specific issue does not affect the correctness of the judgment. ( 14 ) WE, therefore, dismiss the appeal which is devoid of merit. Appeal is dismissed. --- *** --- .