JUDGMENT Honble Sunil Ambwani, J.—In this plaintiffs second appeal arising out of OS No. 95 of 1989 for possession of the disputed house and the land appurtenant thereof, the suit was decreed on 16-11-1991. The Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1989 filed by defendants was allowed by the District Judge, Banda on 13-4-1992 and the suit was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts stated in the plaint, giving rise to the suit are that late Kishori Lal and his wife late Smt. Dulli were the owners of the disputed house and land and were in their possession. Their younger son Lallua also claimed ownership over the land. The plaintiff had purchased the land from them for Rs. 1,500/- by registered sale-deed dated 16-10-1989. The defendants have no right, title or possession over the land. The plaintiff is a Government servant. On 17-11-1989 when he returned back from his office, he found that disputed land and house were forcibly occupied by the defendants. The police did not register the crime on the ground that there was a civil dispute between the parties. The defendants filed a joint written statement and denied the plaint allegations. According to defendants, Shri Kishori Lal; Smt. Dulli and their son had no right, title or possession over the property. They have no right to sell the property by sale-deed dated 16-10-1989. The sale was a fraudulent transaction and did not confer any title on the plaintiff. The defendants were owner and in possession of the disputed property from much before 17-11-1989. The house was constructed by their mother Smt. Budhiya and sister Smt. Raniya, 50 years ago. Smt. Raniya had no son. The mother of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Smt. Budhiya and their father used to live with Smt. Raniya. After their death, they are occupying the property as its owner. 3. The properties ‘A, B, G, H, I’ in the plaint map is 50 ft. north-south and 28 ft. east-west. The defendants alleged that they were in possession of the plot No. 901 since before the abolition of Zamindari after raising their constructions and that if the plaintiffs-purchaser had any title, the same came to an end. The trial Court held that the suit is not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act or estoppel. east-west. The defendants alleged that they were in possession of the plot No. 901 since before the abolition of Zamindari after raising their constructions and that if the plaintiffs-purchaser had any title, the same came to an end. The trial Court held that the suit is not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act or estoppel. The plaintiff is the owner of the land, transferred to him by sale-deed dated 16-10-1989 and that the defendants or their purchaser did not have any right or title and further they did not mature their rights even by adverse possession. 4. The appellate Court re-assessed the entire evidence and recorded the findings: (A) The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were in open possession for more than 12 years prior to the date of filing the suit and that their purchaser had constructed the house. Their possession was adverse to the possession of the plaintiff and their predecessor. (B) Durga; Kishori Lal and Smt. Dulli did not have right to execute a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff. The sale-deed as such did not transfer any title in favour of the plaintiff. (C) The plaintiff did not pay the sale consideration before the Registrar. In his cross-examination, the plaintiff stated that he had paid the amount to Dulli and Kishori Lal outside the office of the Registrar on the date of execution of the sale-deed. (D) The plaintiff-Shanker Singh had purchased the properties situated towards east and south of the disputed property in 1970, He was fully aware of the fact that defendant had their house on the disputed property and were living in it. He was as such not a bona fide purchaser of the disputed property for value. 5. I have heard Shri S.K. Verma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth Verma for plaintiff-appellant and Shri R.C. Gupta, for respondents. 6. The second appeal was admitted on 22-5-1992 on the following substantial question of law : “(1) Whether the Court could rely on the statement contained in the sale-deed dated 16-4-1989 when it was not proved to have been executed by Kishori Lal and Smt. Dulli and whether any statement in the sale-deed dated 16-4-1989 be relied upon when the sale-deed was not confronted to Kishori Lal? (2) Whether the entire, suit could be dismissed when the defendants were laying down their claim only to a part of the suit plot? (3) Whether the defendant’s evidence be related to the plot in dispute (901) when the defendant had filed evidence in regard to other plot? 7. Shri S.K. Verma submits that defendant No. 2 admitted that he had not filed any written statement and as such, the Court could not have entertained and admitted the case of the adverse possession on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. He relies upon Shair Ali v. Jagmohan Ram and another, AIR 1931 All 333 (2), for the proposition Shri Verma Submits that in view of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, the admission was binding. There is no question of contradicting the same. The basis of evidence to prove adverse possession was that defendant No. 1 himself did not enter the witness box. He relies upon S.V.R. Mudaliar (dead) by Lrs and others v. Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) by Lrs. and others, JT 1995(3) SC 614, for the proposition. 8. Shri S.K. Verma submits that for prescribing adverse possession animus is necessary. The simple assertion that the defendant was in possession for more than 12 years is not enough. The possession should be open hostile and with animus. He has relied upon Thakur Kishan Singh (Dead) v. Arvind Kumar, JT 1997 (10) SC 611; and Roop Singh (Dead) through LRs v. Ram Singh (Dead) through LRs, (2000) 3 SCC 708 . 9. Shri Verma further submits that defendants accepted the ownership of Shri Kishori Lal and Smt. Dulli, and got the sale-deed executed from them in their favour on 11-4-1989. They alleged that they were also prepared to get the sale-deed executed for remaining property but on account of their poverty they could not do so. These two paragraphs indicate the weakness of their case regarding possession so long they admitted the ownership of Smt. Dulli and Shri Kishori Lal and since there was no animus, they could not claim adverse possession which could be pleaded and proved with exact time. Shri Verma relies upon S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 SC 1254 . 10. Shri Verma then submitted that the boundaries in the sale-deed have to prevail. Shri Verma relies upon S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 SC 1254 . 10. Shri Verma then submitted that the boundaries in the sale-deed have to prevail. The trial Court relied upon the fact that there was no mention of a house in the sale-deed dated 11-4-1989. This important fact has not been considered by the lower appellate Court in the judgment of reversal and has relied upon Santosh Hazari v. Purshottam Tiwari, JT 2001 (2) SC 707, to support his submissions. 11. I have gone through the judgments and considered the submissions raised at the bar. The defendants stated in para 25 of the written statement that they were in possession of plot No. 901 and had their constructions on it from before the abolition of Zamindari in 1950. The trial Court did not consider the case of adverse possession. The appellate Court relied upon the statement of Shri Chunnu Wad-defendant No. 3 and his statement that towards east of his house is the house of Chunnu and Bhura and thereafter the house of Shanker Bhaiya. The house, in which he lives, was constructed by his Nani-Raniya and he is living in the house since after he attained the age of discretion. Smt. Dulli and Shri Kishori Lal had threatened him that in case he does not execute the sale-deed of his house in their favour, they will harm him. After this incident, he took loan and got a sale-deed executed of his house. He admits that there is no mention of the house in the sale-deed dated 18-4-1989 but that there is a recital in the sale-deed that Khaitani Yadav was in possession of the land and used to tie his cattle. Kaitani was father of defendant No. 3. Kishori Lal predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff had accepted in his statement that the house of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 existed from before the sale of the disputed land. In his cross-examination he stated that he knows Raja Ram and Chunuwad, who were living in the adjacent house for last 15 years, and that he did not want to forcibly occupy the house of Raja Ram. He had asked Raja Ram to execute the sale-deed of the plot in his favour at the time when he had purchased the land from Durga. He had asked Raja Ram to execute the sale-deed of the plot in his favour at the time when he had purchased the land from Durga. The house of Raja Ram was existence and there are two rooms in the adjacent house with some land in front. He did not prove that Chunnu and Raja Ram were living in their house for last 15 years. The appellate Court rightly found from the statements of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 that the rooms of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were constructed and were in existence from before the execution of the sale-deed and Raja Ram and Chunuwad got the sale-deed executed, after Kishori Lal mounted pressure on them. The plaintiff-Shanker Singh in his cross-examination admitted that Bhulli is daughter of Smt. Dulli and Kishori Lal and Durga had sold the house for Rs. 1,500/- to Dulli and Kishori Lal in 1985 and that their original lease deed is in possession of Dulli and Kishori Lal. The appellate Court thus concluded that the rooms occupied by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the house of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 was constructed before 1985, and that the fact, that the sale-deed (Ext. A-1) does not mention the house of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the boundaries, cannot be treated as a reliable evidence to show that there was no house adjacent to the house sold by Ext. A1. The admission is the best evidence in a case. Kishori Lal had admitted this fact in the sale-deed (Ext. 1) regarding the existence of the house of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 adjacent to the property sold by him. 12. The other witnesses namely Bhura PW-1 and Shri Raja Bhaiya, Village Pradhan as PW-2 stated that they had seen Shri Chunnu and Shri Bhura were living in the house since long. The house was never in the occupation of Shri Durga, Smt. Dulli or Shri Kishori Lal. The Gram Pradhan was aged about 50 years and lived close to the disputed house. Person-PW-4 aged 80 years is also resident of the same Mohalla and stated that he had seen defendant Nos. 1 and 2 living in their house for last 60 years. It was constructed by Smt. Rania. He denied that the house belonged to Smt. Dulli or Shri Kishori Lal. Person-PW-4 aged 80 years is also resident of the same Mohalla and stated that he had seen defendant Nos. 1 and 2 living in their house for last 60 years. It was constructed by Smt. Rania. He denied that the house belonged to Smt. Dulli or Shri Kishori Lal. In the electoral list of the years 1966, 1977 and 1973 the names of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as also defendants No. 3 and 4 were entered as electors of village Hardauli, which proved that they are living in the house before in 1966. There was no suggestion that they were living elsewhere in the same locality. 13. The appellate Court also found that the plaintiff did not lead evidence to show how he got possession and whether he had any goods stored in the house. There was no mention of goods and forcibly dispossession in his application to Superintendent of Police. The story set up by him, that he was dispossessed immediately after execution of sale-deed and taking over possession, appears to be cooked up by him for getting possession of the house in occupation of the defendants. The plaintiffs witnesses did not support his theory that he was forcibly dispossessed from the house. 14. The defendants were in adverse possession against the real owner. They could tag their possession as against the alleged owner from much before the abolition of Zamindari. They did not make any such admission in the written statement that they were not in occupation of the land. The fact, that defendant No. 2 did not file written statement, is not an admission of the case set up by the plaintiff. The appellate Court considered and weighed the entire admissible evidence. It was competent to reverse a finding of the fact. The plea of adverse possession is inconsistent with any plea of maturing title by permissive possession and completing 12, years before filing of the suit. There is clear distinction between the adverse possession over the land of some one else and animus against him and the plea of limitation within which the suit could be filed. In the present case, the plaintiffs were aware of the possession of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The sale-deed executed in 1985 recorded the possession of defendants. The entire oral evidence supported their claim. In the present case, the plaintiffs were aware of the possession of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The sale-deed executed in 1985 recorded the possession of defendants. The entire oral evidence supported their claim. The plaintiff could not prove as to how he was dispossessed by the defendants immediately after execution of the sale-deed in his favour. In the circumstances in the present case the plea of animus was not necessary. 15. All the three substantial questions of law as such are returned against the appellant. The second appeal is dismissed with costs. ————