Judgment 1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment of affirmance by the lower appellate court in Title Appeal No. 61/2000 passed by the 4th Addl. District Judge, Saran. 2. The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession over Schedule I property and for grant of mandatory injunction against the defendants. The said suit was originally filed by Smt. Bachana Devi against defendant no. 1. During the pendency of the suit Bachana Devi died whereupon her legal heirs were substituted as the plaintiffs. The defendants in the said suit claimed title over the suit property by virtue of being in adverse possession for over 12 years which has not been accepted by the court below. The lower appellate court in the background of the legal position held that the possession of Raja Ram Singh and his descendants over the suit property from 31.8.1959 to 28.11.1991 cannot be treated as hostile uninterrupted possession against Smt. Bachana Devi. In fact the said Raja Ram Singh had also earlier filed Title Suit No 994959 for specific performance of contract on the basis of a Mahadanama executed by Rani Kanka Kishori Devi, the vendor of the plaintiffs, which finally terminated on 28.11.1991 by the dismissal of the special leave filed by the said Raja Ram Singh by the Apex Court. 3. Mr. Keshav, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants, has in this appeal raised the only question that the respondents suit was not maintainable as it was barred by limitation. According to him, the respondents claimed title and possession by virtue of sale deed executed on 3rd October, 1956 and the suit was filed in the year 1972 which is much beyond 12 years. He submitted that it will be hit by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides that a suit for possession of immoveable property or the interest therein passed on title can be filed within 12 years; whereas in the instant case admittedly the suit was filed much beyond 12 years. Mr. Keshav submitted that in fact the plaintiffs respondents lost their title also by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 27 of the Limitation Act as the suit house was admittedly in possession of the appellants. 4. Mr. Mr. Keshav submitted that in fact the plaintiffs respondents lost their title also by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 27 of the Limitation Act as the suit house was admittedly in possession of the appellants. 4. Mr. Dvivedi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that neither Article 65 is applicable nor Section 27 in the facts and circumstances of the present case will extinguish the right, title of the plaintiffs, respondents. He submitted that it is true that the period of limitation as prescribed in Article 65 is 12 years but the time from which such period is to begin is when the possession of defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiffs. 5. In the instant case, both the courts below have held that the defendants appellants have never been in uninterrupted (sic) and their adverse possession never started and thus, the question of limitation for filing the suit by the plaintiffs respondents will not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. This Court finds substance in the submission of Mr. Dvivedi. In the present appeal, there is no dispute raised as regards the finding of the courts below on the question of claim of the appellants regarding adverse possession. Under such circumstances, there cannot be any question of running of period of limitation from the date of possession of the defendants having become adverse to the plaintiffs. As such, this court does not find any merit in this appeal and the appeal is thus dismissed. 7. The interim order passed on 1.10.2001 is, hereby, vacated.