This is an appeal by the plaintiffs who lost in both Courts below. The case of the plaintiffs, briefly was that the suit land was originally leased out to defendant No.. 1 by granting annul lease by the Government and the plaintiff No. 1 took possession of the land on a consideration of Rs. 420/ - from defendant No. 1 in the year 1950. The alleged sale deed executed was an unregistered one which was marked as Exhibit-1. A proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. was started against the plaintiffs which was ultimately decided in favour of the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, they are in possession of the land since 1950 and as such the plaintiffs have acquired right over the suit land by way of adverse possession. Hence, this suit. 2. That the suit land originally was covered by annual patta in the name of the defendant No. 1 is not disputed. However, it is denied that the land was sold by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. It is also denied that the plaintiffs have been possessing the land since 1950. On 14.7.73 the annual patta was cancelled and the land was made sarkari. However, on appeal the settlement officer by order dated 14.10.74 exhibit-ka, periodic patta was issued in the name of the defendant-respondent No.l. I find from the record namely, exhibit-kha that by the order dated 28. 7.75 passed under Section 145. Cr. P.C. possession of the land was declared in favour of the defendants and this order was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 25.4.77. 3. The learned lower court below held that by unregistered sale deed, marked exhibit-1 which is not admissible in evidence, plaintiffs did not acquire any right, title or interest over the land. The learned trial Court also found after discussing the evidence on record that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land. Accordingly the suit was dismissed. The learned lower appellate Court on the basis of the un-registered sale deed held that the plaintiffs did not acquire any right, title or interest over the land and dismissed the appeal. 4. First contention of Mr. Accordingly the suit was dismissed. The learned lower appellate Court on the basis of the un-registered sale deed held that the plaintiffs did not acquire any right, title or interest over the land and dismissed the appeal. 4. First contention of Mr. Sarma Baruah, learned counsel for the appellants is that as the learned lower appellate Court did not consider the evidence adduced by the parties, the judgment is bad in law as it is contrary to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. In support Mr. Sarma Baruah has placed reliance in a judgment of this Court in Fakar Ali vs. Supdt. of Police and Registration Officer, Goalpara and ors., A. I. R. 1971 Assam and Nagaland 165, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court held that in view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. the first appellate Court as the final court of facts is bound to consider all the evidences adduced by the parties and non-considera­tion of .the evidence of witnesses examined by the plaintiff-appellant in support of his case amounts to an illegality and vitiates judgment. There cannot be any dispute regarding above proposition of law laid down by this Court. 5. I have perused the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court and the learned court rightly rejected the appeal as the un­registered sale deed did not confer any right or title over the land in favour of the plaintiff's. The learned lower appellate Court also took into considerations the revenue proceeding regarding mutation of the lend and also conversion of the annual lease into a periodic one in the name of the defendant No. 1. In ray opinion, the learned lower appellate Court took into consideration all the materials necessary for the purpose of deciding the appeal. I, therefore, reject the conten­tion of Mr. Sarma Baruah. 6. The suit of the plaintiff's is also based on adverse possession. It is settled law that mere possession, without a claim of right, for however long a time, is not sufficient to create adverse possession as possession and adverse possession do not mean the same thing. For example a squatter, upon a land, though holding possession even for the statutory period, cannot acquire title by adverse possession, unless his possession is (1) under claim of title ; (2) hostile to the true owner, and (3) actual, open, uninterrupted, notorious, exclusive and continuous. For example a squatter, upon a land, though holding possession even for the statutory period, cannot acquire title by adverse possession, unless his possession is (1) under claim of title ; (2) hostile to the true owner, and (3) actual, open, uninterrupted, notorious, exclusive and continuous. Legally no adverse possession can run against a person until he becomes entitled to the property. 7. Mr. Das has drawn my attention, regarding adverse possession, to a decision of the Apex Court in S. M. Karim vs. Mast. Bibi Sakina, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1254, wherein it was held that adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against a party affected can be found. 8. In the case in hand, the courts below did not find possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land for the statutory period. This finding of fact cannot be assailed in this appeal. Not only that, there is no plea in the plaint that the possession of the plaintiffs was hostile to the true owner and actual, open, uninterrupted, notorious, exclusive and continuous. Though in the plaint, it has been prayed that right of the plaintiffs to the land be decreed on the basis of their right of adverse possession, the plaintiffs have failed to prove the ingredients lawfully required to acquire the right of adverse possession. 9. As stated above, no adverse possession can run against a person until he becomes entitled to the property. The annual patta i.e. the annual lease granted in favour of the defendant No. I did not confer any right, title or interest over the land and as such even if the plaintiff's were in possession over the suit land it was not adverse to the defendants. The annual lease was converted into a periodic one only on 14. 7. 74 and from that date the defendant No. 1 acquired right, title and interest over the suit land. Though in the plaint the date from which the adverse possession began has not been specifically pleaded, as laid down by the Apex Court in S. M. Karim (supra), the only date I find for this purpose from record is the above date of conversion of the patta i. e. 14. 7. 74. The suit was filed on 5. 7. Though in the plaint the date from which the adverse possession began has not been specifically pleaded, as laid down by the Apex Court in S. M. Karim (supra), the only date I find for this purpose from record is the above date of conversion of the patta i. e. 14. 7. 74. The suit was filed on 5. 7. 77 i. e. well within the statutory period. Therefore, the plea of adverse possession is not at all tenable. 10. From what has been stated above, I hold that this appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed which I hereby do. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.