Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is Second Appeal under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by order dated 7-10-1983 at the time of admission of this appeal :- " (1) Whether the Appellate Court having held that the case set up by the plaintiffs that the land in suit was given on licence to the defendant in the year 1971 was not proved, committed an error of law in passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff. (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellant Court committed an error of law in holding that the defendants did not perfect their title by adverse possession ?" ( 2. ) THE facts relevant for the decision of the questions referred to above are that, Motla was Bhumiswami of Khasra No. 23 area 3. 25 acres of village Moran, Tahsil Alirajpur, District Jhabua. The plaintiffs are his sons. Defendant No. 2 Barjubai is his daughter. Defendant No. 1 Nanliya is the husband of defendant No. 2 Barjubai. The plaintiffs case was that in the year 1971 they had given the land in dispute to the defendants and they built a hut on this land with the permission of the plaintiffs. The case of the defendants was that Motla had given the land in dispute to his daughter forever. She was made owner of this land. She was in adverse possession of this land for more than 4. 0 years. ( 3. ) THE Trial Court held that the defendants occupied this land with the permission of the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court has also held that the land was given to the defendants on licence but it was done by Motla about 25 years ago. The First Appellate Court has further held that the possession of the defendants being permissive, could not mature into title. The decree of the Trial Court has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court with the observation in Para 16 of the judgment that in case Barjubai feels that she is entitled to inherit the property of her father, she may file a separate suit for partition. ( 4. ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that the First Appellate Court has not committed any error. ( 4. ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that the First Appellate Court has not committed any error. It is not of much significance whether the licence was created by the plaintiffs in the year 1971 as held by the Trial Court or twenty five years ago as held by the First Appellate Court. It is well settled that a permissive possession can not be perfected into title. In such possession, there is no hostile animus. The possession is with the consent of the owner. The ownership of the land continues with the person from whom the licence has been taken. Both the questions framed by this Court by order dated 7-10-1983 are answered in the negative. ( 5. ) THIS appeal is dismissed.