JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, J. This appeal has been filed by the Plaintiffs assailing judgment and decree dated 2-9-1993 passed by First Additional District Judge, Sagar in Civil Suit No. 27-A/1984. The original Plaintiff Babulal filed a suit on 30-7-1984 claiming the relief that Plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit premises shown in red colour with letters 'ABCD' in the plaint map. Defendants are in possession of the suit premises as licensee of the Plaintiffs. Defendants are entitled to live in the suit premises in the life time of Moola Bai and after her death, Plaintiffs would be entitled to seek possession of suit premises. The Plaintiffs set up the case that one Dulare predecessor owned the house, he had seven sons namely Bhurelal, Asharam, Nanhelal, Moolchand, Bhagchand, Khushal Chand and Gulab Chand. Each of them had 1/7th share in the house. It is not in dispute that share of Babulal and Gulabchand was sold in auction sale to one Kanchhedilal as per sale certificate (P-1) dated 12-7-1920. Out of remaining 5/7th share Pooranchand s/o Asharam and grandson of Dulare sold his 1/7th share to Ganpatlal vide sale deed dated 1-6-1926. 1/7th Share of Moolchand was sold by his son Bhaiyalal to Ganpatlal vide registered sale deed dated 8-11-1932. Bhoorelal had gifted his 1/7th share to Phoolchand s/o Gulabchand bom out of first wife. Phoolchand died issueless. Moola Bai was second wife of Gulabchand. Gulab Chand and Moola Bai had a son Kapoorchand, who died in 1979. Kamla Bai wife of Kapoor Chand also died on 30-11-1995. Other Defendants Ashok Kumar, Narendra Kumar and Mukesh Kumar are the grandsons of Gulabchand. Phoolchand sold his 1/7th share to Babulal and Dr. Kapoorchand sons of Nanhelal vide sale deed (P-4) = (D-1) dated 13-6-1950 for a sum of Rs. 500/- . Khushal Prasad son of Dulare mortgaged his 1/7th share over Nanhelal as per mortgaged deed (P-2) dated 24-1-1922. These facts are not in dispute. The Plaintiffs claimed that Plaintiff had 3/7th share in the house, in the aforesaid backdrop of the facts marked by 'ABCD' in the plaint. Because of sale of the share of Gulabchand @ Gutai, he ceased to be the owner, however, continued to reside in the portion of his brothers as their licensee. These facts are not in dispute. The Plaintiffs claimed that Plaintiff had 3/7th share in the house, in the aforesaid backdrop of the facts marked by 'ABCD' in the plaint. Because of sale of the share of Gulabchand @ Gutai, he ceased to be the owner, however, continued to reside in the portion of his brothers as their licensee. Since Phoolchand s/o Gulabchand also disposed of 1/7th share in favour of Babulal and Kapoorchand as per sale deed (P-4 = D-1), thus Moola Bai and her family has no share in the said house, she was in occupation as licensee. As she was homeless, Nanhelal and his son Babulal had granted oral licence to occupy the suit premises to reside during her life time. This is how Moola Bai began to reside in the suit house. Kapoorchand son of Nanhelal relinquished his share in the suit house in favour of original Plaintiff Babulal, who died during the pendency of suit on 10-1-1985, thus the property became exclusive property of Babulal in his life time. On 23-9-1982 Defendant No. 1 declared herself owner of the suit premises by newspaper publication in "Jan Jan Pukar" published from Sagar. She applied for mutation also, however, Corporation advised the parties to get the decision from the Civil Court as cloud was cast on the right, title, interest of the original Plaintiff, hence the suit was filed. The Defendants in their joint written statement inter alia contended that Dulare and his sons did not constitute HUF, his sons Bhoorelal, Asharam and Nanhelal had separated in the lifetime of Dulare. Rest of them continued to live with him. It was also denied that each of seven sons had 1/7th share in the ancestral house. It was asserted that Gulab Chand @ Gutai and his family members were in actual possession of said portion of Bhoorelal prior to gift deed dated 16-3-1925 executed in favour of Phoolchand. It was also contended that though Phoolchand executed the sale-deed (P-4) = (D-1) dated 13-6-1950 in favour of Babulal and Dr. Kapoorchand for a consideration of Rs. 500/- but possession was not handed over. It was executed as a collateral security for loan. An amount of Rs. 500/- was repaid on 12-8-1950 and the original sale-deed was returned to Phoolchand by making an endorsement on reverse of the original sale-deed (Ex. D-1) by Babulal and Dr. Kapoorchand for a consideration of Rs. 500/- but possession was not handed over. It was executed as a collateral security for loan. An amount of Rs. 500/- was repaid on 12-8-1950 and the original sale-deed was returned to Phoolchand by making an endorsement on reverse of the original sale-deed (Ex. D-1) by Babulal and Dr. Kapoorchand of receipt of loan amount. Thus, the sale-deed was rendered ineffective. Phoolchand continued to remain in possession till his death though mortgage deed (P-2) dated 24-1-1922 was executed by Khushalchand in favour of Nanhelal for a sum of Rs. 300/- , however, Khushalchand continued to live in the house in question till his death in the year 1948. He died issueless. Plaintiffs did not claim partition and separate possession of suit premises nor relief of foreclosure or to recover possession of the mortgaged property or to secure the payment of mortgaged money was prayed in the plaint, thus the suit was not maintainable. It was denied that Moola Bai was given the licence to occupy the premises. It was also denied that Kapoorchand relinquished his interest in favour of Babulal in the year 1957. The Defendants were in occupation in their capacity as owner of the house. Plaintiffs were not having any right, title or interest in the suit house. Gulabchand and Phoolchand died in the year 1938 and 1952 respectively in the suit house. Plaintiff Babulal neither his brother Dr. Kapoorchand nor his father Nanhelal remained in possession at any point of time. By dismantling the front portion shown in the map filed in the written statement, two shops were constructed and Moola Bai inducted the tenant Ramesh Chand s/o Kanhaiyalal and thereafter in 1961 Tara Chand was inducted by Defendant No. 1, he was still in occupation of premises and was running Ramesh Medical Stores. The other room was used by Moola Bai and her son Kapoorchand @ Kasturchand, who died in 1979. The Defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 have opened Digambar Kirana Stores in the said room in the year 1978. It was further contended in the written statement that Plaintiff Babulal published an advertisement (P-13) in 'Dainik Jan Jan Pukar' published from Sagar on 10-10-1967 for sale of the house in question. The Defendant Moola Bai denied the Plaintiffs' ownership and right to sell the property by publishing a counter notice (D-7) in the same newspaper on 25-10-1967. It was further contended in the written statement that Plaintiff Babulal published an advertisement (P-13) in 'Dainik Jan Jan Pukar' published from Sagar on 10-10-1967 for sale of the house in question. The Defendant Moola Bai denied the Plaintiffs' ownership and right to sell the property by publishing a counter notice (D-7) in the same newspaper on 25-10-1967. Plaintiff Babulal had no right in the house. House has been extensively repaired. New construction made, in the knowledge of the Plaintiffs. Suit filed was beyond period of limitation. The plea of adverse possession was also raised and right, title and interest of the Plaintiffs, if any, had come to an end by virtue of adverse possession of the Defendants. The trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the Plaintiffs/Appellants. The trial Court has found that licence was not proved. Adverse possession was not proved. Relinquishment by Kapoorchand in favour of Babulal was also not proved. Other issues were also found to be not proved. Suit was held to be barred by limitation. It was further held that without relief of possession suit was not maintainable. It was also found that sale deed (P-4 = D-1) dated 13-6-1950 was a collateral transaction for ensuring repayment of loan. Loan was repaid and endorsement was made by Babulal and Kapoorchand on the back of original sale-deed (D-1), thus sale-deed was found to be ineffective. It was not intended to be acted upon. Shri K.N. Agrawal, Learned Counsel appearing for Plaintiffs/Appellants has taken this Court through entire evidence on record. He has submitted that Defendant Moola Bai was inducted as a licensee. Phoolchand had executed out and out sale-deed (P-4 = D-1) dated 13-6-1950 in favour of Babulal that related to the share of Bhoorelal, gifted to Phoolchand in 1925. Thus Babulal and Kapoorchand became the owner of additional 1/7th share. Nanhelal had 1/7th share in the house and Khushalchand had executed a mortgage deed (P-2) dated 24-1-1922 in favour of Plaintiff Nanhelal the father of the Plaintiff. Thus 1/3rd share of Khushalchand also came in the ownership of Plaintiff, thus he became the owner of 3/7th share. The plea of adverse possession cannot be taken by a licensee. Adverse possession has not been established. Moola Bai was given right to reside in her life time as she was helpless and had no support. Thus 1/3rd share of Khushalchand also came in the ownership of Plaintiff, thus he became the owner of 3/7th share. The plea of adverse possession cannot be taken by a licensee. Adverse possession has not been established. Moola Bai was given right to reside in her life time as she was helpless and had no support. She has died on 26-9-1994 during pendency of the suit, thereafter right has accrued to the Plaintiff to recover the possession from her. Consequently an application seeking relief of possession has been filed in this appeal. In case this Court comes to the conclusion that there was formal defect in the suit by not making specific prayer for consequential relief. Plaintiffs/Appellants be permitted to withdrawn the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court being illegal be set aside. Shri R.P. Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Lalit Pandey, Advocate for Respondents has submitted that Defendant Smt. Moola Bai remained in 3/7th share of the suit premises. Nanhelal never lived in any part of the suit premises. Mortgage by Khushal was without delivery of possession. Plaintiff Babulal did not file any suit for possession, enforcement of the mortgage money or foreclosure. The rights of the mortgagee under Articles 62 and 63 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stood extinguished. Defendant made construction of two shops in 1958. One portion was let out to Shri Ramesh Chandra as per rent note Ex. D-5 dated 16-9-1958 which was witnessed by Babulal Jain, Plaintiff himself and one shop was let out on rent to Shri Tara Chand as per another rent note dated 1-1-1961. Advertisement was published in daily issue of 'Jan Jan Pukar' dated 25-10-1967, Defendant refuted claim of Plaintiff Babulal and asserted her own right. In this General Public Notice she made assertion of her ownership right and possession over the suit premises. Such assertions were made in reply to notice Ex. P-13 published in daily issue of 'Jan Jan Pukar' dated 15-10-1967. Possession of Smt. Moola Bai has been shown as per Ex. P-14 to P-18. Ex. P-19 was addressed to Babulal in response to his application dated 1-10-1982. Municipal Commissioner stated that since question of title is involved he may file a civil suit. Smt. Moola Bai again asserted her exclusive right by publishing a General Notice dated 23-9-1982 in 'Jan Jan Pukar'. P-14 to P-18. Ex. P-19 was addressed to Babulal in response to his application dated 1-10-1982. Municipal Commissioner stated that since question of title is involved he may file a civil suit. Smt. Moola Bai again asserted her exclusive right by publishing a General Notice dated 23-9-1982 in 'Jan Jan Pukar'. Payment of municipal taxes by Smt. Moola Bai has been shown as per Ex. D-8 to D-20. There is thus ample evidence to show continuous, open and hostile possession over the suit premises of the Defendant within the knowledge of Plaintiff. Shri R.P. Agrawal, Senior counsel has placed reliance on various decisions of Apex Court to contend that Defendant Smt. Moola Bai having remained in possession of the suit premises became the absolute owner of the suit premises. Alternatively no licence could be terminated u/s 60(b) of the Easement Act because Smt. Moola Bai made permanent construction of the two shops and let out the same to tenants as per Ex. D-5 and D-6. In such a situation license could not even otherwise be revoked. Hence, no interference is called for in this appeal, same is liable to be dismissed. It is not in dispute that 4/7th share of Asharam, Moolchand, Bhagchand and Gulabchand was sold. Share of Babulal and Gulabchand was sold in the auction as per sale certificate dated 12-7-1920 and share of Asharam and Moolchand was sold to Ganpat as per sale-deeds (P-5 and P-6) dated 1-6-1926 and 8-11-1932 respectively. Dispute remains with respect to the share of Bhoorelal, Nanhelal and Khushalchand. It is also not in dispute that Bhoorelal had executed the gift-deed in favour of Phoolchand s/o of Gulabchand born out of first wife. Moola Bai was the second wife of Gulabchand. Phoolchand died issueless. He was not married, however, Phoolchand in his life time had executed a nominal and fictitious sale-deed (P-4 = D-1) dated 13-6-1950 in favour of Babulal and Kapoorchand for the reasons to be mentioned hereinafter. Amount of loan secured under sale-deed was repaid to Babulal and Kapoorchand and they made an endorsement on the back of the original sale-deed regarding refund of sale consideration. Thus the share of Bhoorelal, Phoolchand having died issue-less devolved on Defendant No. 1 Moola Bai, her son Kapoorchand and Kapoorchand's widow Kamla Bai and sons Ashok Kumar, Narendra Kumar and Mukesh Kumar/Defendants No. 2 to 5. Thus the share of Bhoorelal, Phoolchand having died issue-less devolved on Defendant No. 1 Moola Bai, her son Kapoorchand and Kapoorchand's widow Kamla Bai and sons Ashok Kumar, Narendra Kumar and Mukesh Kumar/Defendants No. 2 to 5. Nanhelal had 1/7th share, original Plaintiff Babulal was son of Nanhelal, thus ownership of 1/7th share remained with Babulal and Kapoorchand sons of Nanhelal. Another 1/7th share was mortgaged over Nanhelal as per mortgaged deed (P-2) dated 24-1-1922. However, Khushal continued to live in his life time, it was mortgaged without possession. In the absence of bringing a suit for foreclosure within 30 years in order to secure possession of immovable property mortgaged, limitation prescribed under Article 63(b) of Limitation Act, 1963 is 12 years from the date when mortgagee became entitled to possession. As per Article 62 of Limitation Act, 1963 to enforce payment of money secured by a mortgage or otherwise charged upon immovable property is twelve years when the money sued for becomes due. Under Limitation Act, 1908 limitation was 60 years by mortgagee for foreclosure or sale when the money sued for becomes due. Under Article 135 of Limitation Act, 1908 period of limitation was of 12 years when mortgagor's right to possession determines. Article 146 of the Limitation Act, 1908 prescribed period of 30 years from the date when any part of the principal or interest was last paid on account of the mortgage-debt. As the Plaintiff Babulal nor his father Nanhelal exercised the right to enforce payment of money or of foreclosure or for possession of immovable property mortgaged within the prescribed period of limitation. The right under mortgage deed dated 24-1-1922 has become extinct as result thereof share of Khushalchand would devolve upon the remaining legal representatives of his brothers or their relatives, he died issueless, thus corresponding share would fall upon the Plaintiffs as well as on the Defendants as per their entitlement but entitlement of share is not being gone into as that is not the prayer nor in the absence of other legal representatives it would be appropriate to determine the question. Coming to the plea of licence, connected with that is the assertion of the Defendant as to adverse possession. It is not in dispute that Plaintiff Babulal, his brother Kapoorchand, Nanhelal and other sons of Dulare did not reside in the suit house. Coming to the plea of licence, connected with that is the assertion of the Defendant as to adverse possession. It is not in dispute that Plaintiff Babulal, his brother Kapoorchand, Nanhelal and other sons of Dulare did not reside in the suit house. 4/7th share of Gulabchand, Bhagchand, Moolchand and Asharam came to an end in between 1920 to 1932 by sale certificate/sale-deed (P-1, P-5 and P-6). Bhoorelal executed the gift-deed in favour of Phoolchand. Khushalchand executed the mortgage deed in favour of Nanhelal, however the possession remained with the Defendants of 3/7th share in the property. It appears that as gift-deed was executed by Bhoorelal in favour of Phoolchand son of Gulabchand born out of the first wife. Moola Bai being second wife, her son and grandsons continued to occupy the house in question as 3/7th share was not divided. Though Rajaram has stated that Moola Bai was in occupation as licensee, she never moved out of house even after her marriage, is not in dispute. Thus it is clear that she was residing in the house not as a licensee but otherwise exercising the right of residence along with Phoolchand as 1/7th share of Gulabchand husband of Moola Bai was sold in the year 1920. Rajaram has admitted that he was residing in the house situated at Shanichari Tori, not in the house in question. He was unable to deny the suggestion that in 1903 the said house was purchased in the name of Moola Bai by Dulare as per sale-deed Ex. D-3. He was not aware how many houses Dulare had of joint Hindu Family. He was also unable to deny that Khushalchand used to reside along with Moola Bai and Moola Bai used to look after Khushalchand. He has also admitted in Para-24 of his deposition that Moola Bai had published notice (P-20) in the newspaper in the year 1967 and (D-4) was published in the year 1982 then he came to know that Moola Bai had asserted her ownership in the house in question. He was also unable to deny that Moola Bai had inducted Ramesh Chand as tenant. He was also unable to deny that Ramesh had vacated the room which he occupied for the purpose of running a shop in 1960. He was also unable to deny that Moola Bai had inducted Ramesh Chand as tenant. He was also unable to deny that Ramesh had vacated the room which he occupied for the purpose of running a shop in 1960. He was also unable to state whether any rent note was executed by Kanhaiyalal in favour of Moola Bai though he has denied signatures of Babulal on the rent note (D-5) dated 16-9-1958. Abdul Rehman (PW-3) is yet another witness examined by the Plaintiff in order to prove factum of license. He has stated that Moola Bai was given permission to occupy as licensee by Nanhelal, he overheard it while he was on the door of his house. Permission given to Moola Bai was for her life time, it was not reduced in writing. His statement does not inspire confidence. He stated factum of license in casual manner. He was aged 72 years in 1992 whereas Moola Bai was born sometime in 1914 and had continued to live in the suit house even after her marriage. B.K. Nayak (PW-4) had also stated that share of Gulabchand was sold in the year 1920, next day Moola Bai came to the house of Nanhelal, Babulal and Kapoorchand and asked for permission to reside in the house. Babulal, Kapoorchand and Nanhelal gave her licence to reside in her life time. The age of the witness was 62 years in the year 1992. The portion of Gulabchand was sold in 1920, this witness was not even born, thus he has stated a patent lie. He has related to the case of license the next date on which the share of Gulabchand was sold, it was admittedly sold in 1920 as per sale certificate (P-1), thus the statement of witness is not at all worthy of credence with respect to plea of license. Smt. Moola Bai (DW-1) has stated that her marriage was performed when she was 12 years old. She was residing continuously in the suit house after marriage. Her husband had performed two marriages. After death of first wife of Gulabchand, she performed marriage with Gulabchand. Phoolchand was son from the first wife. Gulabchand died in the year 1938. Kapoorchand @ Kasturchand was son born to them, he had three sons namely Ashok Kumar, Narendra Kumar and Mukesh Kumar. Kapoorchand had left behind widow Kamla Bai. Kapoorchand died in the year 1979. After death of first wife of Gulabchand, she performed marriage with Gulabchand. Phoolchand was son from the first wife. Gulabchand died in the year 1938. Kapoorchand @ Kasturchand was son born to them, he had three sons namely Ashok Kumar, Narendra Kumar and Mukesh Kumar. Kapoorchand had left behind widow Kamla Bai. Kapoorchand died in the year 1979. Khushalchand died in the house in question and she used to look after Khushalchand. Khushalchand died issueless some time in 1948. She has stated that she was occupying the house as owner. Nanhelal nor his son Babulal ever resided in the suit accommodation. Bhoorelal also did not reside in the suit accommodation. She never obtained any license from Nanhelal or Babulal to reside in the house. She constructed two shops in 1957-58 in the front portion of the house. One of the shops was let out to Ramesh son of Kanhaiyalal and another shop was retained by her grandson. Rent note was executed in her favour. Kamla Bai (DW-2) wife of Kapoorchand @ Kasturchand has stated that they were residing in the suit accommodation after marriage and her sons after birth. Ashok Kumar Jain (DW-3) has also asserted the ownership. Tarachand (DW-4) tenant inducted by Moola Bai in the year 1961 has been examined. He had executed the rent note (Ex. D-6) in favour of Moola Bai. He used to run the shop in the name and style of Ramesh Medical Stores. Initially Ramesh son of Kanhaiyalal was occupying two rooms. After Ramesh had vacated the room, he occupied one of the rooms. (Ex. D-1) was signed by Kapoorchand in portion A to A and also by Babulal in portion B to B. Khemchand neighbour has also been examined. He has also stated that the Defendants were residing for the last 40 years in the suit accommodation. Mahesh Jain another witness was examined so as to prove signatures of Dr. Kapoorchand over Ex. D-1. There are documents on record (P-14) Tax Assessment Register for the year 1961 to 1963, which supports the possession of Moola Bai. Similarly (P-15) is the extract of Tax Assessment Register for the year 1963-65, (P-16) is for the year 1967-71 (P-17) is for the year 1971-75 and (P-18) is for the year 1975-76. As already mentioned there is rent note (D-5) dated 16-9-1958 and (D-6) dated 1-1-1961. Rent note (D-5) was also signed by Plaintiff Babulal. Similarly (P-15) is the extract of Tax Assessment Register for the year 1963-65, (P-16) is for the year 1967-71 (P-17) is for the year 1971-75 and (P-18) is for the year 1975-76. As already mentioned there is rent note (D-5) dated 16-9-1958 and (D-6) dated 1-1-1961. Rent note (D-5) was also signed by Plaintiff Babulal. There is nothing to doubt the signatures of Babulal, thus he had not objected induction of tenant by Defendant No. 1 Moola Bai way back in the year 1958. In the case of coparcenery property law is well settled that until and unless there was ouster and hostile title asserted to the knowledge of other co-parcener, it is not possible to prescribe adverse possession, classic requirement is that of nec-vi nec-clam nec-precario. Plea of adverse possession has been set up in the written statement as part of ownership was with the Defendant with respect to the remaining share. There was clear categorical unequivocal denial made in the year 1967. Newspaper publication (P-13) was made by Plaintiff Babulal son of Nanhelal, Katra Bazar, Sagar in the daily newspaper 'Jan Jan Pukar' published from Sagar. It was mentioned in the notice that there was an ancestral house situated at Gujarati Bazar in front of the house of Makhanlal in which in the front portion Ramesh Medical Stores used to be run. In the outer portion his Aunt (Moola Bai) used to reside with their permission. She was not having any right in the house as her share was already attached by the Court. He wanted to sell the property whosoever was willing was required to contact him at the given address. It is admitted by Rajaram in Para-24 of his deposition that it was to his knowledge that counter notice was published in daily newspaper Jan Jan Pukar by Defendant No. 1 Moola Bai on 26-10-1967. In which it was informed to the general public that Babulal son of Nanhelal was not having any right or title in the property nor he had any right to alienate. Notice published by him was fraudulent. She had inducted the tenant in the Ramesh Medical Stores and she was residing in the house. Ex. P-20 was clearly a repudiation of title of Babulal. This newspaper was published in 1967. Limitation to file the suit had commenced in the year 1967 in order to recover the possession, there was an ouster. Notice published by him was fraudulent. She had inducted the tenant in the Ramesh Medical Stores and she was residing in the house. Ex. P-20 was clearly a repudiation of title of Babulal. This newspaper was published in 1967. Limitation to file the suit had commenced in the year 1967 in order to recover the possession, there was an ouster. The Plaintiff never recovered any rent from the tenants. Tenants were inducted and rent was realized by the Defendant No. 1 Moola Bai. Suits were also filed for ejectment by Moola Bai or other Defendants. In view of the title of Babulal being denied, it was incumbent upon him to file the suit within 12 years w.e.f. 26-10-1967 so as to recover the possession. Even for the sake of argument plea of licensee is accepted though it has not been proved, licensee had repudiated the license and asserted the ownership in clear terms in the year 1967, thus it was not open to Babulal to sit quiet till 1984 for 18 years, to wait for yet another publication (P-12) made in 1982 and to base the suit for the purpose of limitation on publication made on 25-1-1982. Babulal has failed to take steps for foreclosure nor he took any steps as mandatory under Articles 62/63 of Limitation Act 1963 and corresponding Article of Limitation Act, 1908. Thus the adverse possession commenced w.e.f. the date of publication in the newspaper i.e. 26-10-1967 to the extent of right, title and interest of Babulal still he did not pray when the suit was filed for possession. There was repudiation of the title in the written statement in so many words. Still application was not filed for relief of possession. It was filed seeking relief of possession on 10-10-2000. Assertion made in the written statement amounts to open assertion of title and was clearly an act which was hostile as held by Apex Court in Shambhu Prasad Singh Vs. Mst. Phool Kumari and Others, Moola Bai also died in the year 1994 during pendency of this appeal. It is trite law that amendment sought for after expiry of period of limitation cannot be allowed. Amendment sought so as to incorporate relief for possession, is thus misconceived. Relief for possession had become barred by limitation. Mst. Phool Kumari and Others, Moola Bai also died in the year 1994 during pendency of this appeal. It is trite law that amendment sought for after expiry of period of limitation cannot be allowed. Amendment sought so as to incorporate relief for possession, is thus misconceived. Relief for possession had become barred by limitation. The Plaintiff had waited for 16 years even after repudiation in the written statement of their title to seek relief of possession, thus application filed to incorporate the relief which had become barred by limitation cannot be allowed. The application filed is liable to be rejected. Adverse possession had commenced in the year 1967 on the date when title was repudiated in notice published in newspaper. Though in view of the adverse possession the question as to the nominal and fictitious nature of sale deed dated (D-1) dated 13-6-1950 purported to be executed by Phoolchand in favour of Babulal and Kapoorchand is of academic importance, however, the custody of original sale deed (D-1) remained with the Defendants. The custody of original sale deed in case it was out and out sale ought to have been with the purchaser. It was intended to be a collateral security for loan. Loan was repaid after two months as per endorsement on the back of the original sale deed Ex. D-1, Signatures of Babulal and Kapoorchand have been proved by Mahesh Jain (DW-6) and Tarachand (DW-4). There is absolutely nothing to discard their depositions. They are truthful witnesses. The finding of the trial Court that sale deed was executed as collateral security for loan advance, is hereby affirmed. Thus the share gifted to Phoolchand by Bhoorelal was never transferred nor it was intended to be transferred and sale deed was nominal and fictitious. The loan secured under it stood repaid. Prayer was made by way of filing application to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. As on merit the Plaintiffs have not been able to succeed, adverse possession had ripened into the ownership vis-a-vis to the Plaintiffs even before the suit was filed, thus it would not be fair and proper to allow withdrawal of the suit and to permit litigation afresh after more than two decades. As on merit the Plaintiffs have not been able to succeed, adverse possession had ripened into the ownership vis-a-vis to the Plaintiffs even before the suit was filed, thus it would not be fair and proper to allow withdrawal of the suit and to permit litigation afresh after more than two decades. Litigation should come to an end and in view of the finding recorded on merit of the case, I do not find it appropriate to accept the prayer made by the Appellants to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. Resultantly, I find no merit in this appeal. Appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. However, I leave the parties to bear their own costs as incurred of this appeal. Final Result : Dismissed