JUDGMENT : 1.The present appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff Maitabkhan Yakubkhan Pathan against dismissal of his suit (Regular Civil Suit No.73/1980) for permanent injunction, alternatively for possession and damages by the Additional District Judge, Bhandara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 29/1987 by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sakoli in favour of the present appellant. 2. The dispute relates to the land bearing Gat No.242, Khasra No.132/2, area 0.50 acre situated at village Bhugaon, tahsil Sakoli, district Bhandara which was owned by Tukdu Kisan Nandagaoli (hereinafter referred to as .D-3 Tukdu.). It seems that on 26.06.1967 D-3 Tukdu agreed to sell the said land to Vithoba Sitaram Nandagaoli (hereinafter referred to as .D-2 Vithoba.). However, on 28.06.1967 D-3 Tukdu sold it to Baburao Motiram Nandagaoli (hereinafter referred to as .D-1 Baburao.). Soon thereafter D-1 Baburao obtained possession of the said land. On 17.07.1967 Vithoba (D-2) instituted Regular Civil Suit No.142/1967 against Tukdu (D-3) and Baburao (D-1) for specific performance of agreement of sale. The said suit was decreed in favour of Vithoba on 03.11.1969. It is not known as to whether in pursuance of the said judgment and decree, sale deed came to be executed in favour of Vithoba. However, it came in evidence that Vithoba obtained possession of the said land. 3. On 17.02.1971 D-2 Vithoba and D-3 Tukdu agreed to sell the said land to Maitabkhan (the plaintiff). According to plaintiff Maitabkhan, he paid full consideration and possession of the land was also delivered to him. On 25.03.1971 plaintiff Maitabkhan was imprisoned in connection with a murder for about 5 years. Taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff Maitabkhan, D-1 Baburao got his name mutated in the revenue record. After plaintiff Maitabkhan was released from Jail, D-2 Vithoba and D-3 Tukdu executed sale deed (Exh.77) in favour of plaintiff Maitabkhan on 03.04.1978 and delivered possession of the land to plaintiff Maitabkhan. 4. According to plaintiff Maitabkhan, the defendants forcibly removed his paddy crop from the said land on 30.10.1978. On the next day plaintiff Maitabkhan lodged report against them and they were prosecuted. Even during the next year, the defendants removed paddy crop from the plaintiff's land. Hence on 24.04.1980 plaintiff Maitabkhan instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 73/1980 for permanent injunction, alternatively for possession and for damages. Plaintiff Maitabkhan based his suit on title. 5. On the next day plaintiff Maitabkhan lodged report against them and they were prosecuted. Even during the next year, the defendants removed paddy crop from the plaintiff's land. Hence on 24.04.1980 plaintiff Maitabkhan instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 73/1980 for permanent injunction, alternatively for possession and for damages. Plaintiff Maitabkhan based his suit on title. 5. D-3 Tukdu admitted the claim of plaintiff Maitabkhan. However according to him he is not responsible for the damages claimed by plaintiff Maitabkhan. 6. According to D-1 Baburao plaintiff Maitabkhan was never placed in possession of the suit land and he never cultivated the suit land. It was D-1 Baburao who was in possession of the suit land since 1967. The possession of D-1 Baburao was ratified by all the sons of D-2 Vithoba. D-1 Baburao has been continuously and peacebly in possession of the suit land since 1967 and he has perfected his title to the suit land by adverse possession. D-1 Baburao claims to be in possession of the suit land as owner thereof. He contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed. 7. During the pendency of the suit D-2 vithoba died and his L.Rs. were brought on record. They denied the claim of plaintiff Maitabkhan. Plaintiff Maitabkhan produced original sale deed dated 03.04.1978 (Exh.77) and the certified copy of the judgment dated 01.11.1969 in Regular Civil Suit No. 142/1967 (Vithoba .vs. Tukdu and Baburao). D-1 Baburao produced certified copy of the extract of Index No.2 (Exh.94) as well as certified copies of revenue record Exhs. 80, 95, 96, 97, 98 and 99 in order to show his title to the suit land and possession over the suit land. Plaintiff Maitabkhan examined himself, Tukdu (D-3) and the scribe of the sale deed whereas D-1 Baburao examined himself. 8. On the basis of the evidence , the trial Court held that plaintiff Maitabkhan has proved his title to the suit land, however, the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit land. The trial Court directed D-1 Baburao to deliver possession of the suit land to plaintiff Maitabkhan and to pay damages for the year 1978-79 and mesne profits for the year 1979-80. The trial Court directed D-1 Baburao to deliver possession of the suit land to plaintiff Maitabkhan and to pay damages for the year 1978-79 and mesne profits for the year 1979-80. In the appeal preferred by D-1 Baburao against the said judgment and decree, the lower appellate Court held that plaintiff Maitabkhan has failed to prove his title to the suit land, plaintiff Maitabkhan also failed to establish that he was in possession of the suit land. The lower appellate Court held that D-1 Baburao proved his ownership to the suit land and possession over the suit land. The title of D-1 Baburao did not extinguish on account of passing of decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 142/1967. Accordingly the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal of D-1 Baburao and dismissed the suit. The present appeal is directed against the said judgment. 9. The learned Single Judge of this Court admitted the present appeal on five substantial questions of law. However, in my opinion only one substantial question of law arises in the present appeal which is as under:- .Whether the lower appellate Court could have dismissed the suit for possession based on title when D-1 Baburao failed to establish that his title was perfected by adverse possession?. 10. I have heard Mr. A.D. Vyawahare, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S.G. Kukday, Advocate for respondent no.1 on the above substantial question of law. I have also gone through the record and proceedings of the trial Court and the appellate Court. 11. In support of his claim, the plaintiff has produced and proved the sale deed dated 03.04.1978 (Exh.77) executed in his favour by D-3 Tukdu and D-2 Vithoba and duly registered. The said sale deed shows that the suit land was agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs.1000/-; that on 17.02.1971 the entire amount of consideration was received by the vendors; that the possession of the land was delivered to the plaintiff on the same day i.e. 17.02.1971 and that the sale deed was executed on 03.04.1978. 12. According to plaintiff Maitabkhan , he obtained possession of the suit land on 17.02.1971 and since then he was continuously in possession of the suit land till 1978-79 when the defendants' removed paddy crop from the said land. 12. According to plaintiff Maitabkhan , he obtained possession of the suit land on 17.02.1971 and since then he was continuously in possession of the suit land till 1978-79 when the defendants' removed paddy crop from the said land. It may be noted that on 25.03.1971 plaintiff Maitabkhan was imprisoned for a period of 5 years in connection with a murder. Plaintiff Maitabkhan tried to explain that during the period of his imprisonment, his wife and nephew used to look after the cultivation of the suit land. However, neither the wife of plaintiff Maitabkhan nor his nephew has been examined to show that they looked after the cultivation of the suit land. The revenue record for all those years also do not show the name of plaintiff Maitabkhan as the person in possession of the suit land. It thus appears that despite the recitals in the sale deed (Exh.77) that the possession of the suit land was delivered to plaintiff Maitabkhan on 17.02.1971, plaintiff Maitabkhan was not in possession thereof. In fact even after execution of the sale deed dated 03.04.1978 (Exh.77) , the revenue record does not stand in the name of plaintiff Maitabkhan as the person in possession of the suit land. It thus appears that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land either from 17.02.1971 or from 03.04.1978 though he acquired title to it by virtue of the sale deed dated 03.04.1978 (Exh.77). Now possession must follow title and accordingly plaintiff Maitabkhan is entitled to recover possession of the suit land on the basis of the sale deed dated 03.04.1978 (Exh.77). 13. The claim of the plaintiff was, however, contested by D-1 Baburao on the ground that he was placed in possession of the suit land way back on 29.06.1967 and since then he is continuously in cultivating possession of the suit land. Plaintiff Maitabkhan was never in possession of the suit land. The version of D-1 Baburrao is also corroborated by the entries in revenue record for all these years. However, during crossexamination D-1 Baburao admitted that D-2 Vithoba dispossessed him in the year 1968 and D-2 Vithoba was in possession of the suit land till 1971. Plaintiff Maitabkhan was never in possession of the suit land. The version of D-1 Baburrao is also corroborated by the entries in revenue record for all these years. However, during crossexamination D-1 Baburao admitted that D-2 Vithoba dispossessed him in the year 1968 and D-2 Vithoba was in possession of the suit land till 1971. During the course of cross-examination he also admitted that in terms of the decree passed in R.C.S.No. 142 of 1967 in favour of D-2 Vithoba, he (D-1 Baburao) delivered possession of the suit land to Vithoba (D-2). It is thus clear that D-1 Baburao was not in possession of 10 the suit land from 1968 to 1971. In order to perfect title by adverse possession, it is necessary for D-1 Baburao to establish that he was continuously in possession of the suit land for a period of 12 years. Plaintiff Maitabkhan filed the suit on 24.04.1980. Thus the period of 12 years has not been completed from 1971 to 1980. As such the defence raised by D-1 Baburao that he became owner of the suit land by adverse possession and that plaintiff Maitabkhan lost his title cannot not be accepted. In view of the above admissions of D-1 Baburao, the observations by the lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff has not filed any document showing that any execution proceedings were filed by Vithoba (D-2) against Baburao (D-1) and Tukdu (D-3) and on their failure the Court executed the sale deed in Vithoba's favour are unwarranted. Further observations of the lower appellate Court that there is no proof of D-3 Tukdu having sold land to D-2 Vithoba in pursuance of the decree are misconceived. The lower Appellate Court was equally wrong in observing that it was D-1 Baburao alone who could pass tile by executing sale deed in favour of plaintiff Maitabkhan. On the basis of these observations, the lower Appellate Court concluded that plaintiff Maitabkhan failed to establish title over the suit land. 14. In this connection it is also important to note that D- 1 Baburao has not placed any document whatsoever about his acquiring title to the suit land. As seen from his written statement, D-1 Baburao raised defence of perfection of his title over the suit land by adverse possession. As discussed earlier, D-1 Baburao has utterly failed to establish adverse possession over the suit land. 15. As seen from his written statement, D-1 Baburao raised defence of perfection of his title over the suit land by adverse possession. As discussed earlier, D-1 Baburao has utterly failed to establish adverse possession over the suit land. 15. Consequently the plaintiff though was never in possession of the suit land either from 17.02.1971 or from 03.04.1978 is entitled to get possession of the suit land on the basis of the sale deed by 03.04.1978 (Exh.77). The lower Appellate Court misdirected itself and arrived at a patently erroneous and perverse conclusion. Hence the judgment of the lower Appellate Court cannot be sustained and will have to be set aside by restoring the judgment of the trial Court, except so far as it relates to payment of damages and mesne profits. I, therefore, pass the following order. The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court is quashed and set aside. The judgment of the trial Court is upheld with a slight modification that the plaintiff's claim for damages and mesne profits is dismissed. D- 1 Baburao shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs of the plaintiff throughout.