This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Appeal No. 12 of 1984. The learned Assistant District Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh in title Suit No. 52 of 1982. It may be staled that the suit was decreed by the learned trial court, but is was dismissed by the learned lower appellate court. Hence the present appeal by the plaintiff. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows : According to the plaintiff he was a tenant from the year 1950 under Late Spatula in respect of the land measuring 2-Bs-OK-ll Ls covered by dag no. 27 of periodic patta no. 41 of village Lezal, Mouza Laruah in the district of Dibrugarh. The rent was payable in kind and according to the terms of the tenancy, one mound of paddy per bigha annually was to be paid. The plaintiff has alleged that he resided over the suit land by constructing house etc. According to the plaintiff Late Sipotulla executed an agreement for sale dated 5.3.59 and under the said agreement, the purchase money was fixed at Rs. 650/-. Out of the said amount Rs. 300/- was paid in cash and on the same date i.e. 5.3.59 an unregistered deed of agreement for sale was executed. The plaintiff has further alleged mat thereafter he paid UK balance amount of Rs. 350/- by delivery of 16 mounds of paddy every year for four years and also by rendering his services under late Sipotulla as his employee. A specific statement has been made that in spite of request, Sipotulla did not execute the sale deed though the entire payment was made in the year 1963 i.e. within 4 years. On the basis of this payment, the plaintiff has claimed absolute ownership of the suit land though no registered sale deed was executed. Plaintiff has averred that the present defendant and to harass him by making attempt to forcibly occupy the suit land and accordingly police was informed and also the Executive Magistrate. A proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was drawn up and according to the plaintiff in the said proceeding, for the first time on 10.5.78, it was disclosed that the defendant purchased the land from late Siputulla by registered sale deed. A proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was drawn up and according to the plaintiff in the said proceeding, for the first time on 10.5.78, it was disclosed that the defendant purchased the land from late Siputulla by registered sale deed. The proceeding ultimately went up-lo the court of learned Secessions Judge in revision in which out of the entire suit land the learned Sessions Judge declared possession in favour of the plaintiff in respect of only 16-Ls of land. 3. In the written statement various pleas were taken including the fact that the plaintiff was in permissive occupation in respect of 16 Ls of land only. Late Sipotulla died in the year 1981 and according to the defendant till 1979-80 plaintiff used to work under him as fisherman. As the plaintiff was in permissive possession of the land he had no right, title and interest over the land. 4. Upon the pleadings, the learned trial court framed as many as 7 issues, which are as follows : (i) Is the suit maintainable in law and in facts ? (ii) Have the plaintiffs right to sue ? (iii) Whether the plaintiff no. 1 acquired any right, title and possession over the suit land? (iv) Whether the defendant has got right, title and possession over the suit land? (v) Whether the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant is null and void? (vii) To what relief or relief the parties are entitled ? 5. Heard Mr. P. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. This Second Appeal was admitted on two substantial question of law, namely, whether Section 53 A of the T.P. Act may come to the aid of the defendant in a plea of adverse possession and what would be the effect of the sale deed stated to have been executed in favour of the defendant relating to the suit land ? 7. At the out-set I may record that Mr. 7. At the out-set I may record that Mr. Prasad has submitted that the case of the plaintiff is not based on Section 53 A of the T.P. Act and according to the learned counsel the entire case of the plaintiff is based on the fact that after the full consideration was paid on the basis of the agreement for sale, which was marked as exhibit -1, in the year 1963, the plaintiff has acquired adverse possession in as much as he did not pay any rent to late Sepotulla or his legal heirs and that he was possessing of the land, was hostile to the said Late Sepotulla. But as the above question regarding 53A of the T.P. Act has been framed, this question has to be answered. 8. According to Mr. Goswami Section 53A cannot be set up for proving title and it cannot be only a defence. In this connection, learned counsel has drawn my attention 10 Section 54 of the T.P. Act regarding contract of sale which inter alia, provides that such contract of sale does not create any interest in or change of such property. According to the learned counsel after the agreement for sale, exhibit -1 was executed, even if the full consideration was paid, continuance of the plaintiff in the land was only a permissive possession. The language of Section 53A is absolutely clear that (his section does not enable a party to claim title over the land as agreement for sale docs not create any interest in favour of the person over the suit land and at best it can only be set up as a defence. But if the person has performed his part of the contract or is willing to perform his part, he can always file a suit for specific performance of contract. 9. In this connection, I may refer to two decisions of the Apex Court. In Delhi Motor Co. and others vs. U.A. Basrurkar, AIR 1968 S.C. 794 , the Apex Court in para 6 of the judgment has clearly held that Section 53A of the T.P. Act is only available as a defence to a lessee and not as conferring a right on the basis of which the lessee can claim right against the lesser. The Apex Court referred to a decision of the Privy Council reported in AIR1940 P.C. 1. The Apex Court referred to a decision of the Privy Council reported in AIR1940 P.C. 1. The same view was also taken in Ram Gopal Ready vs. The Additional Custodian Evacuee Property, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1438. 10. Now what is the legal status of a person who has entered into the land as a tenant and thereafter there was an agreement for sale ? This question was duly considered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Barua Giril vs. Rajakishore Girl, A.I.R. 1983 Orissa 107. The Division Bench after considering the decision of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 758 and also Madras High Court reported in ILR (1965) 1 Mad 254 has held that if there is no intention to hold any property adversely, the possession cannot be said to be adverted and a person who claims title by adverse title must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was adverse to the real owner. The court also held that even after a contract to sell is executed the title clearly resides with the vendor, and even though the proposed vendee has taken possession, his possession is under the contract and is, therefore, clearly permissive. Court further held that where, the origin of possession of the proposed vendee is proved to be permissive it will presumed to be so unless and until something has happened to make it adverse. I am in respectful agreement with the above views. 11. Keeping in view the above ratio, I hold that in the case in hand plaintiff cannot claim his right on the basis of Section 53A of the T.P. Act. I further hold that after the execution of the alleged contract for sale, exhibit -1 even if I accept that the entire amount was paid by the plaintiff, his possession continued to be only permissive. 12. Before I proceed further I may slate here that as the plaintiff has claimed adverse possession and the admitted position is in view of both the decisions of the courts below that though he has claimed more than 2 Bighas of land, in fact he is in possession of 16 - Ls of land. Therefore, his claim for title on the basis of adverse possession over the balance of the land i.e. arrears excluding 16 -Ls of land is not tenable in law. Therefore, his claim for title on the basis of adverse possession over the balance of the land i.e. arrears excluding 16 -Ls of land is not tenable in law. Now, therefore, let me consider whether as urged by Mr. Prasad, the plaintiff has been able to prove adverse possession in respect of 16-Ls of land. 13. I may stale here that the ingredients of adverse possession were considered by this Court and I may refer to three decisions of this court, namely, Padam Chandra Borah vs. Nityananda Borah, 1990 (2) G.L.J. 273, Smli. Bishekha Lala Bhuyan vs. Shri Ram Bihari Choudhury, 1990 (2) GU 472 and Smli. Sumala Dulla vs. Shri Mohan Ch. Bora, 1991 (2) GU 80. It is not necessary to reiterate the principles laid down in these decisions. But, I may only state that in Smli. Sumala Duita (supra), it was specifically laid down by this court that in a plea of adverse possession, the onus to prove it is on party who lakes such a plea. I may also refer that it was laid down in the Padam Chandra Borah (supra) that finding regarding adverse possession is a question of fact and finding of the lower court is binding on this court in this Second Appeal. 14. Be that as it may, I may consider whether the plaintiff has been able to prove title by adverse possession, though I have stated that after execution of the agreement for sale possession is only permissible. 15. In this connection I may refer two decisions on which reliance has been placed on by Mr. Prasad. Privy Council in Ejas Ali Quidwai vs. Special Manager, Court of Wards, A.I.R. 1935 P.C. 53, it was held that the principle of law of adverse possession is firmly established that in a case of adverse possession it must be shown by clear and unequivocal evidence that the possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. In that case the onus was on the appellant which he failed to discharge, and the appeal was dismissed. In Bhabani Prasanna Lahiri vs. Manindra Chandra Roy Choudhury, AIR 1935 Calcutta 760, a Division Bench of the Court held that in order to establish adverse possession it must be shown that possession was adequate in publicity, in continuity and in extent. In Bhabani Prasanna Lahiri vs. Manindra Chandra Roy Choudhury, AIR 1935 Calcutta 760, a Division Bench of the Court held that in order to establish adverse possession it must be shown that possession was adequate in publicity, in continuity and in extent. It was also held that it is sufficient that possession should be overt and without any attempt at concealment so that the person against whom time is running ought, if he exercises due vigilance, to be aware what is happening and that it is not necessary in order to establish adverse possession that proof of acts of possession should cover every moment of the requisite period. 16. The above law is well settled regarding adverse possession and this court also took the above view in the three decision quoted above. 17. Coming to the case in hand, the whole claim of the plaintiff is that after the execution of agreement for sale in the year 1959, the entire consideration was paid in the year 1963 and therefore, the character of the plaintiff as tenant changed and his possessions became adverse to the true owner. In the case in hand Late Sipotolla was the true owner. Of course he died before the suit was filed. As the plaintiff has claimed adverse possession, he ought to have made the legal heirs of Late Siptolla and by not doing so the suit is liable to be dismissed as he cannot claim adverse possession against the subsequent buyer. 18. According to Mr. Prasad after the entire consideration was paid in the year 1963, no rent was paid and as such the possession became adverse. 19. A Division Bench of this Court in Dharani Bald vs. Sadhu Charan Ram Biswakarma, AIR 1956 Assam 20, in para 5 considered Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding estoppels of a tenant for denying title of the plaintiff and held that mere non payment of rent even for any long period would not deprive the landlord his right. In the case in hand though the plaintiff did not pay the rent as stated by Mr. Prasad this by itself would not amount to overt act to constitute adverse possession. 20. Incidentally I may refer to the agreement for sale, exhibit -1 which was the basis for claiming the title by the plaintiff. In the case in hand though the plaintiff did not pay the rent as stated by Mr. Prasad this by itself would not amount to overt act to constitute adverse possession. 20. Incidentally I may refer to the agreement for sale, exhibit -1 which was the basis for claiming the title by the plaintiff. There is a specific clause that the balance amount was to be paid within one year and in the event of failure the plaintiff will not be entitled to claim refund of the advance of Rs. 300/- which was paid. Admittedly the balance amount was paid subsequently and not within the above period of one year. Therefore, on the basis of this agreement, title was not perfective. Incidental I may state here that exhibit -1 was not properly stamped and it was the duty of the court to realize the amount including the penalty for the revenue of the State which the court failed to do so. I express my displeasure on the conduct of the court for not doing so. 21. Mr. Goswami has submitted that in exhibit. - 1, the schedule of the land was not described, but on going through, the document itself I find that some description of the land was given and that apart, it was never pleaded that land could not be identified on the basis of the exhibit - 1. Therefore, contention of Mr. Goswami is not accepted. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any force in the present appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.