JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - The short question that falls for consideration in this Second Appeal is: If possession delivered pursuant to an oral mortgage can be recovered. 2. One Raghunath Domb was the owner of the property in dispute, 5.82 acres in extent. In 1953 for a sum of Rs. 120/- he orally mortgaged Plot No. 138/2 of Khata No. 76 with Thirli Domb the father of Defendant No. 1. In 1958, he again mortgaged orally for a consideration of Rs. 550/- the Plot Nos. 151/1 and 158/2 with Defendant No. 1. Alleging that the usufructs of the mortgages stood discharged on the expiry of the prescribed period under the provisions of the Orissa Money Lenders Act, the Plaintiff instituted the spit for recovery of possession and for mesne profits. The suit was resisted by the Defendants on the ground that the property was alienated by way of sale and not by way of mortgage. In any case the Defendants had acquired title by adverse possession. The trial Court negatived the plea of purchase advanced by the Defendants but dismissed the suit holding that the Plaintiff had lost title to the property on account of acquisition by the Defendants of title by adverse possession. In appeal by the Plaintiff, the lower appellate Court confirmed the finding that there was no sale by the Plaintiff's father in favour of either Defendant No. 1's father or Defendant No. 1. It further held that the Defendants having come to possess as the mortgagee they could not prescribe title by adverse possession and so holding decreed the suit. Defendant No. 1 has carried this Second Appeal.. Shri B. L. N. Swamy, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, has strenuously urged that a suit for redemption basing on oral mortgage was not maintainable. He relied on Kolathoor Variath and Another Vs. Pairaprakottoth Cheriya Kumhahammad Haji, where it has been held that a suit for redemption of an oral mortgage is incompetent. A decision of the Full Bench of the Rangoon High Court in Ma Kyi v. Maung Thon and Anr. AIR 1935 Rang 230 (F.B.) and that of the Rajasthan High Court in Hansia and Another Vs. Bakhtawarmal and Others were followed and approved by the Supreme Court. 3. Had the party sued for redemption the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Appellant would be unassailable. AIR 1935 Rang 230 (F.B.) and that of the Rajasthan High Court in Hansia and Another Vs. Bakhtawarmal and Others were followed and approved by the Supreme Court. 3. Had the party sued for redemption the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Appellant would be unassailable. But, it has been rightly urged by Shri S. K. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the suit out of which this Second Appeal arises was a suit for recovery of possession simpliciter and not a suit for redemption. No doubt there are allegations that the property had been mortgaged with Defendant No. 1's father and also with Defendant No. 1. But, this is by way of narration of the history. The relief claimed was simply for recovery of possession. Therefore, Variath's easel (supra) supports the Plaintiffs-Respondents. I quote therefrom: Where a Plaintiff cannot regain possession' on the basis of an oral mortgage as it cannot be proved in a Court of la w for want of registration, it is open to him to recover possession on the strength of his title. 4. In the Full Bench decision, Page, C.J. has held: The proper course for the' Plaintiff would be to sue for possession relying on his title....... Hence, in my opinion, the present suit not being a suit for redemption and being a suit for recovery of possession simpliciter, is not incompetent. 5. The next question is: 1? the Defendants can be said to have acquired title by way of adverse possession. Merely because the Plaintiff cannot institute a suit for redemption the mortgage being invalid, it does not follow that the possession of the Defendant is adverse from the very date of invalid mortgage. If there is an unregistered document, though the same cannot be used to found a suit for redemption that may be used if the Defendant has advanced a plea of adverse possession for collateral purpose of showing the nature of the possession of the Defendant. 6. In this case, the Courts below have concurrently found that there was no sale in favour of Defendant No. 1 or his father. It, therefore, follows that Defendant No. 1 and his father were possessing the land not as owners of the land in exercise of any hostile title in themselves. Their possession was permissive in character. In Purshottam Das v. De' Souza ILR 1950 Cutt. It, therefore, follows that Defendant No. 1 and his father were possessing the land not as owners of the land in exercise of any hostile title in themselves. Their possession was permissive in character. In Purshottam Das v. De' Souza ILR 1950 Cutt. 50, the Division Bench held that the possession of a mortgagee under a void mortgage is of limited interest even after expiry of the twelve years. Rightly, therefore, the lower appellate Court has taken the view that the Defendants could not acquire title by adverse possession. 7. In the result, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant being devoid of merits, the Second Appeal is dismissed. But, in the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed