D. M. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) -THE disputed land is claimed to be Ac 0 10 decimals under Plot no. 208 Admittedly one Kulamani Patnaik and his three brothers were the owner in possession of the property Admittedly this plot, the total area of which is Ac 0 50 decimals came to the ownership and possession of Kulamani Patnaik on a family partition. ( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff is Kulamani sold Ac. 0 17 decimals of land by a registered sale deed dated 5. 11 1955 to one Linga gouda and his other co-sharers sold Ac 0 9 decimals of land to said Linga Gouda by registered sale deed dated 21. 4. 1971 This area of Ar 0 26 decimals form the northern ha'f of the whole area plaintiff purchased this land from Linga gouda in the year 1972 and possessed the same Defendants' case is that the southen half measuring Ac 0 24 decimals of land was sold by the Patnaik family to one Laxmi and thereafter by a registered sale deed Laxmi sold the same to one Manguli and Manguli by a registered deed dated 137 1976 {rx 7) sold the same to defendant No 1 Defendant No 1 has been possessing the land from that day the lower court decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession The appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that the defendants prescribed title by adverse possession ( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY both have purchased from plot No. 208. The question for decision is whether this Ac 0. The question for decision is whether this Ac 0. 10 decimals of land claimed by the plaintiff relates to the area either purchased by the plaintiff or the defendants A survey knowing Commissioner was deputed and his report is on record From the report it is apparent that he went and identified the suit land by measuring Plot No 208, and its eastern side is adjacent Plot No 209 No doubt the Commissioner has mentioned in the report the disputed area was covered by construction of a house by defendant No 1 but it seems there is no finding of the lower appellate court as to whether the Ac 0 10 decimals of the land which is the subject matter of the suit forms any part of the purchased area of either the plaintiff or the defendant The lower appellate court has reversed the finding of the lower court by holding that defendant No 1 has prescribed a title by adverse possession ( 4 ) THE main point for decision in this appeal is whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is correct plaintiff came forward with a case that he purchased the land out of which ten decimals of land is in dispute and thus on the basis of such purchase he had a title to the suit prop erty but he merely prayed for recovery of possession from the defendant Law is well settled that if someone files a case only for mere recovery of possession he has to prove his title Even sometimes without having title, a person may also file a suit for mere possession subject to the period of limitation and in that case, the plaintiff may succeed unless the defendant proves a better title than the plaintiff. In the present case, when the plaintiff came forward with such a case it was incumbent on the part of the court particularly the lower appellate court to give a decision as to whether a suit can he in the facts and circumstances of the case merely for recovery of possession That aspect has not been dealt with by the learned lower appellate court, though the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed on the ground that defendants have pre scribed title by adverse possession ( 5 ) SO far as the question of adverse possession by the defendants is concerned, admittedly both the parties have purchased their respective portions from the same plot, plaintiff having purchased from the northen side and defendant from the southern side. The dispute relates to ten decimals of land the lower appellate court has not found as to in what manner or by what act of possession the defendants possessed the suit land adversely Law is well-settled that a person prescribes title against the owner because of possessing, his land with hostile animus for the statutory period Admittedly in the present case, defendant took the sale deed from Manguli in the year 1976 and Manguli had taken the sale deed from Laxmi and Laxmi had pur chased from the original owner Kulamani patnaik. This shows that the vendees acquired their title from their vendors by taking sale deed from them at different times In that case, question of possession of the land with a hostile animus could not arise because when the period runs against the true owner, it starts running till the end of the statutory period But once vendees take a document of title from the true owner possession with a hostile animus comes to an end at the mo ment This aspect of the case has not been dealt with by learned lower appellate court and this need re-examination in the light of the above settled position of law Therefore a mere possession for whatever long period might be, the very fact of taking sale deed from the true owner wouid arrest the running of time, since the element of hostile animus would be absent ( 6 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed judgment of the lower appellate court is set aside The matter is remitted back to the lower appellate court, who shall give .