DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the sole plaintiff K. Mogili reddi in O. S. No. 32 of 1981 on the file of the district Munsif s court, Palamner, against judgment and decree dated 15-2-1993 in a. S. No. 2 of 1986 on the file of 1 st Additional district Judge at Chittoor setting aside judgment and decree dated 10-10-1985 in o. S. No. 32of 1981. ( 2 ) NECESSARY facts for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: papi Reddi, father of the sole plaintiff, appi Reddi, who is the husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 and three others are brothers. The suit property is the ancestral property of the family consisting of the above brothers. At one point of time some brothers got separated their share and left the joint family. Later, in the year 1959 or so Papi Reddi and appi Reddi also got divided the joint family properties among themselves. In the suit property, 2/3rd share was allowed to Papi reddi and the remaining 1/3rd share was allotted to Appi Reddi. The plaintiff instituted the suit claiming that in the year 1959 Appi reddi sold his 1/3rd share for a sum of rs. 75-00 to the plaintiff. Even according to the plaintiff the said sale is oral sale. It is the claim of plaintiff that from the date of his purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of entire suit property in his own right. He claims that even otherwise he perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession. He filed the suit seeking only one relief, namely, relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. 4th defendant is the husband of third defendant. The defendants denied that appi Reddi sold his share to the plaintiff at any time. They also denied that the plaintiff perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession. They claimed to be absolute owners of suit property. According to them during the life time of Appi Reddi plaintiff being the brother s son of Appi Reddi was looking after cultivation of the suit land on behalf of Appi Reddi. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the trial court settled the following issues and additional issue for trial. (1) Whether the plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession? On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the trial court settled the following issues and additional issue for trial. (1) Whether the plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for? (3) To what relief? additional Issue: whether the oral sale by Appi Reddi in favour of the plaintiff is true and binding on defendants?both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the trial court. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court held that the oral sale in favour of plaintiff is not true. It also held that the plaintiff has not perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession. Regarding possession, the trial court held that plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as a tenant on the date of death of Appi Reddi. As plaintiff was held to be in possession of the suit property, the trial court decreed the suit granting the relief of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, defendants 2 to 4 filed the appeal in A. S. No. 2 of 1986 before the learned 1st Additional District Judge, chittoor. First defendant in the suit died during the pendency of the suit. The lower appellate court disagreed with the finding of the trial court that the sole plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as a tenant of appi Reddi. The lower Appellate court held that the possession of the sole plaintiff was permissive possession during the life time of appi Reddi and as defendants are owners of the suit property, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the true owners viz. , defendants, Accordingly it set aside the judgment of the trial court by allowing the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the sole plaintiff. During the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court, the sole plaintiff died. Appellants herein came on record as legal representatives of the sole appellant. Aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate court, the legal representatives of the sole plaintiff filed this appeal. ( 3 ) AT the time of admission of this appeal, the learned admission Judge treated the following points formulated in the memorandum of appeal as substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in the present appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate court, the legal representatives of the sole plaintiff filed this appeal. ( 3 ) AT the time of admission of this appeal, the learned admission Judge treated the following points formulated in the memorandum of appeal as substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in the present appeal. (1) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to support the decree of the trial court by challenging the findings adverse to him without filing cross objections? (2) Whether the plaintiff who has been in possession of the suit property in some capacity or other is not entitled to protection until evicted by due process of law? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, plaintiff is not entitled to permanent injunction as granted by the trial court? ( 4 ) POINTS: On a consideration of evidence adduced by both the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not purchase the suit property from Appi Reddi. It also held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property only for a period of about ten years and therefore he did not perfect his title to the suit property by adverse possession. The lower Appellate court noticing these findings, at one stage of the appeal observed that as the sole plaintiff did not file any cross objections regarding adverse findings of the trial court regarding oral sale and adverse possession set up by him, those findings cannot be challenged by him in an appeal filed by defendants. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that even without filing any cross objections, he can challenge the adverse findings at the time of hearing of the appeal preferred by the defendants in the suit. The learned counsel for the respondents relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Banarsi v. Phal contended that there is no power for the Appellate court to interfere with a decree appealed against in the absence of any cross appeal or cross objections. I have carefully gone through the above judgment of the Apex Court. The learned counsel for the respondents relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Banarsi v. Phal contended that there is no power for the Appellate court to interfere with a decree appealed against in the absence of any cross appeal or cross objections. I have carefully gone through the above judgment of the Apex Court. The above judgment of the Apex Court arose out of a suit where different claims were made by plaintiff in a suit for specific performance and according to the Apex court, if one claim (relief) is disallowed, without preferring any appeal or cross objections regarding the claim (relief) disallowed by the trial court, the aggrieved party cannot challenge those findings in an appeal preferred by the other party regarding the relief claimed by the plaintiff without filing any cross appeal or cross objections. In the present case, the plaintiff sought for only one relief, namely, relief of permanent injunction. He did not seek any other relief. Therefore, there is no question of one relief being granted and another relief being disallowed to the plaintiff. Therefore, the above decision of the apex Court, in my considered opinion, has no application to the facts of the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that as the lower appellate court did not consider the grounds raised by the sole appellant at the time of hearing of the appeal regarding the adverse findings relating to oral sale and adverse possession, the appeal is to be remitted back to the lower Appellate court to consider those aspects and record findings on those two crucial aspects. In the circumstances of the present appeal, I am unable to accept the said contention. Even though the lower appellate court stated at one stage of the judgment that-the plaintiff did not file any cross objections, in para 15 of its judgment, the lower Appellate court categorically mentioned that on reappraisal of oral evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3, the lower Appellate court has least hesitation to conclude that the lower court has come to right conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he acquired title to the suit properties either by way of oral sale set up or by way of prescription, namely, being in adverse possession for over the statutory period of 12 years prior to the suit. Therefore, even though the lower Appellate court observed that as cross objections were not filed by the plaintiff, he is not entitled to challenge any of the findings regarding oral sale and adverse possession. Its further discussion indicates that in fact in considered the evidence and on reappraisal of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3, it concurred with the findings of the trial court on those two issues. It is to be further stated that in para 14 of the judgment, the lower Appellate court stated that in para 14 of the judgment, the lower Appellate court stated that those findings were not challenged seriously before it by the plaintiff at the time of hearing of the appeal. Therefore, I do not see any reason to remit back the appeal to the lower Appellate court for a fresh consideration of the contentions of the plaintiff regarding oral sale and adverse possession. ( 5 ) THE trial court held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as a tenant of Appi Reddi. As rightly pointed out by the lower Appellate court the trial court made out a case not set up by the plaintiff himself. At no stage it is the case of the plaintiff that at any point of time he was in possession of the suit property as a tenant of Appi Reddi. The lower Appellate Court categorically held that the plaintiff was looking after suit property on behalf of Appi Reddi. The said possession was construed by the lower Appellate Court as permissive possession. It is a finding of fact recorded by the lower Appellate Court on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties. There are no reasons to interfere with the said finding of fact recorded by the lower Appellate Court. ( 6 ) IN view of that fact, the further question to be considered is whether as plaintiff is found to be in permissive possession of the suit property on the date of the suit, is he entitled for permanent injunction in his favour. The learned counsel for the appellants in this connection relied upon some decisions. ( 6 ) IN view of that fact, the further question to be considered is whether as plaintiff is found to be in permissive possession of the suit property on the date of the suit, is he entitled for permanent injunction in his favour. The learned counsel for the appellants in this connection relied upon some decisions. The Apex Court in a decision reported in Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao held that where a person is in settled possession of the suit property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law. I had an occasion to consider the principle of law laid down by Apex Court in that judgment. My judgment will be referred to at a later stage. Before Apex Court the question whether a person in possession of any property without any right to be or to continue in possession can seek relief of permanent injunction against the true owner or not did not fall for consideration. The concerned suit was filed under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act. It is not a suit filed by a person not legally entitled to remain in possession seeking permanent injunction against the true owner. ( 7 ) ANOTHER decision relied upon is a decision of Apex Court reported in Munshi ram v. Delhi Administration. In a criminal appeal, in para 14 of its judgment, the Apex court held that no one including the true owner has a right to dispossess the trespasser by force if the trespasser is in settled possession of the land and in such a case unless he is evicted in due course of law, he is entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner. In this case also the crucial question whether a trespasser is entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction against the true owner did not fall for consideration before the Apex court. This decision has no application to the facts of the present appeal. In this case also the crucial question whether a trespasser is entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction against the true owner did not fall for consideration before the Apex court. This decision has no application to the facts of the present appeal. ( 8 ) ANOTHER decision relied upon is a decision of Apex Court reported in Ram rattan v. State of U. P. In this case also in a criminal case the Apex Court held as follows:"a true owner has every right to dispossess or throw out a trespasser, while the trespasser is in the act or process of trespassing and has not accomplished his possession, but this right is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his possession to the knowledge of the true owner. In such circumstances the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourses to the remedies available under the law. While it may not be possible to lay down a rule of universal application as to when the possession of a trespasser becomes complete and accomplished, yet, one of the tests is to find out who had grown the crop on the land in dispute. ". ( 9 ) RELIANCE was also placed on a decision of Kerala High Court reported in karthiyayani Amma v. Govindan. The kerala High Court held that a person in possession without title can maintain a suit for injunction against a true owner restraining him from disturbing his possession. This principle is not good law ia view of two decisions of this court. A learned Single judge of this court (as His Lordship was then) in a decision reported in Osmania university, Hyderabad v. Dr. V. Rajeshwar rao and others observed as follows:"the trespassers are not entitled to injunction against the true owner. Merely because a true owner cannot evict a trespasser forcibly, it does not follow that a trespasser can obtain injunction as of right against the true owner. The remedy of permanent or temporary injunction is basically an equitable relief and plaintiff must come to court with clean hands. The plaintiff cannot therefore normally be permitted to seek the aid of the court to protect his unlawful possession for seeking injunction against the true owner". The remedy of permanent or temporary injunction is basically an equitable relief and plaintiff must come to court with clean hands. The plaintiff cannot therefore normally be permitted to seek the aid of the court to protect his unlawful possession for seeking injunction against the true owner". ( 10 ) IN a decision reported in K. Ankiaiah v. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, I had an occasion to consider various decisions of apex Court and this court including decision of Apex court reported in Krishna Ram mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao (2 supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants at the time of hearing of this appeal. I have held in para 24 as follows:"consideration of various decisions cited at the time of hearing of this revision petition clearly indicate that person not having any legal right over disputed property, even if he is in possession of the disputed property, when such a person is not lawfully entitled to continue in possession of the disputed property and any person whose possession is to be treated as illegal or unlawful possession, will not be entitled to seek the relief of injunction against the true owner. " ( 11 ) IN the present case the plaintiff failed to prove the purchase allegedly made by him and his perfecting his title to the suit property by adverse possession. He had not pleaded that he is otherwise entitled to remain in lawful possession of the suit property against any claim for possession by the true owner. In view of the principle of law laid down this court in the above decision (7 supra), it is very clear that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. There is one another aspect to be made a mention. The plaintiff claimed that he is having 2/3rd share and he purchased the remaining 1/3rd share in the suit property from Appi Reddi. However, he did not specify in his pleadings of the plaint schedule the specific 2/3rd portion which fell to his share and specific 1/3rd share purchased from Appi Reddi. The alleged remaining 1/3rd share in the suit property is the property of defendants 1 to 3 who succeeded to the said property after the death of Appi Reddi. However, he did not specify in his pleadings of the plaint schedule the specific 2/3rd portion which fell to his share and specific 1/3rd share purchased from Appi Reddi. The alleged remaining 1/3rd share in the suit property is the property of defendants 1 to 3 who succeeded to the said property after the death of Appi Reddi. If there is any dispute regarding the specific portions belonging to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, the remedy of the plaintiff is to file a proper suit seeking relief of partition of his 2/3rd share from the rest of 1/3rd share belonging to defendants 1 to 3 in the suit property. The defendants are not claiming any right in the alleged 2/3rd share of the plaintiff in the suit property. Their defence relates to alleged 1/3rd share which originally belonged to Appi reddi. There are no merits in the present appeal. There are no grounds to set aside the well considered judgment of the lower appellate Court. All the points are accordingly answered against appellants and in favour of respondents. ( 12 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.