JUDGMENT : S. Ali Ahmad, J. - The defendants have filed this appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed in favour of the plaintiff respondent for declaration of his title and recovery of possession with respect to the suit lands. 2. Undisputedly holding no. 475 measuring 1 katha 10 dhurs situated in Mohalla Kagji in the town of Siwan belonged to Kulwatia Kuer. According to the plaintiff she executed a registered deed of sale in the year 1943 in favour of her daughter Dhanbata Kuer and her sister Tapeshwara Kuer. The will although was not probated but according to the plaintiff Kulwatia Kuer in her life time herself divided the holding in two blocks 15 dhurs each. The northern portion was given to Tapeshwara Kuer and the southern portion was given to Dhanbata Kuer. This was done before the year 1950. It is said that Tapeshwara Kuer and Dhanbata Kuer remained in peaceful possession of the portions allotted to them. Kulwatia Kuer is said to have died in the year 1958. Thereafter it is said that Tapeshwara Kuer sold her northern portion of holding no.475 which later on became holding no.606 to one Zaitunnisa by a sale deed dated 13.10.1%5, she got her name mutated in the municipality and after gelling the plan sanctioned constructed a house over it. Thereafter she remained' in possession of the house until 7.3.1968 when she sold the same to the plaintiff by a registered sale dead. It is said that thereafter on 23.3.1968 the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff. On these facts the plaintiff, came to this Court. The plaintiff asserted that Tapeshwara had perfected her title by adverse possession by remaining over the lands in question for more than 12 years openly, without interruption in assertion of her title and denial of others and prayed for a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 3. The defendants contested the suit. They denied the execution of any will by Kulwatia Kuer. They also denied the assertion made by the plaintiff that Tapeshwara Kuer was put in possession of the suit land by Kulwatia Kuer. According to them Dhanbata sold the southern portion of plot no. 475 to one Ali Bahadur by a sale deed dated 16.11.1950 and these defendants purchased the same from Ali Bahadur by a subsequent sale deed executed by Ali Bahadur in their favour. According to them Dhanbata sold the southern portion of plot no. 475 to one Ali Bahadur by a sale deed dated 16.11.1950 and these defendants purchased the same from Ali Bahadur by a subsequent sale deed executed by Ali Bahadur in their favour. They also said that Dhanbata Kuer being the sole heir of Mostt. Kulwatia inherited the entire holding and sold the remaining northern portion to them by sale deed dated 13.1.1968. 4. The courts below have concurrently found that Tapeshwara Kuer was in possession of the suit land since before 1950. It also found that Tapeshwara Kuer sold the same in favour of Zaitunnisa by a sale deed dated 13.10.1965 who in her turn sold it to the plaintiff by a sale deed dated 7.3.1968. It may be mentioned that in the sale deed dated 16.l1.1950 Dhanbata Kuer herself had mentioned Tapeshwara to be in possession of the northern side of the land sold by her. This was a very strong piece of evidence and the courts below were fully justified in coming to the conclusion that Tapeshwara Kuer was in possession since before 16.11.1950. Thereafter Zaitunnisa come into picture who got her plan sanctioned and constructed the house where she lived for a year or two and thereafter sold the same to the plaintiff. These arc all facts which conclusively indicate that Tapeshwara who had no title came in adverse possession of the suit land and perfected title by remaining on it for more than 12 years. The suit was filed in the year 1958 much after the title of Tapeshwara was perfected by adverse possession. The plaintiff is a purchaser from Zaitunnisa who was purchaser from Tapeshwara. In the circumstance the courts below were right in holding that the plaintiff had a right over the suit land since the defendant have not been able to prove that they have been in adverse possession for more than 12 years. The courts below were right in decreeing the suit and therefore, I see no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstance of the case, there will be no order as to costs.