Judgment Abhay M.Naik, J. ( 1. ) Short facts involved herein are that plaintiffs/ respondents No. I and 2 instituted a suit against respondents No.3, 4, 5 and father of respondents No.6 and 7 for declaration of title and perpetual injunction on the basis of adverse possession in respect of the suit land comprised in survey No. 512 in area 7 biswa, survey No.624 in area 5 bigha 7 biswa, and survey No.625 in area 4 bigha 7 biswa situated in village Didawam, Tahsil Picchore, District Shivpuri (M.P.) with allegations that the plaintiffs occupied the land on 04.02.1959 within the knowledge of the defendants openly and adversely and have been in cultivating possession since then with continuity. Thus, they acquired Bhumiswami Rights by virtue of adverse possession. On 02.07.1985, defendants tried to interfere into the plaintiffs possession, hence, the suit. ( 2. ) Defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs by submitting joint written statement. They stated that the plaintiffs had never been in possession. Khasra entries were disputed as concocted. ( 3. ) After raising the issues, learned trial judge recorded the evidence. Plaintiffs produced various revenue khasra entries marked as Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/8 and examined himself as PW-1 and one witness, namely, Chaulal as PW-2. Defendants did not produce oral or documentary evidence. Learned trial judge vide his judgment and decree dated 27.09.1989 dismissed the suit on merits. Aggrieved by it. Civil Appeal was preferred which was allowed by the learned lower appellate judge, hence, the present appeal which has been heard on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the 1st Appellate Court has erred in allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.l and 2 and holding that plaintiffs have acquired adverse possession of the suit property ignoring the admission made by the plaintiff/PW-1 in para 2 of his statement?" ( 4. ) Learned counsel for the parties made their respective submissions which have been considered in the light of the material on record. ( 5. ) It is submitted by Shri Katare, learned counsel for the appellants, that the plaintiff in paragraph 2 of his statement on oath has clearly stated that the suit land was obtained by him from defendants for cultivation. He has not pleaded or proved overtact by which his possession could be said to have become adverse. ( 5. ) It is submitted by Shri Katare, learned counsel for the appellants, that the plaintiff in paragraph 2 of his statement on oath has clearly stated that the suit land was obtained by him from defendants for cultivation. He has not pleaded or proved overtact by which his possession could be said to have become adverse. There is no proof on record that how did his possession become adverse to the defendants. Thus, according to Shri Katare, learned counsel for the appellants, decree for declaration, on the basis of adverse possession could not be legally granted. ( 6. ) Shri J.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents, submitted that in paragraph 3 of his statement, the same plaintiff (PW-1) has resiled from his earlier version and the learned lower appellate judge taking the same into consideration has rightly granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs about the acquisition of title by adverse possession since the cultivating possession of the plaintiffs for a period of more than 30 years is duly established by oral and documentary evidence. ( 7. ) Law with regard to adverse possession has been clarified by Hon. the Supreme Court of India at times and again. Earlier, in the case of Thakur Singh (Dead), Appellant Vs. Arvind Kumar (AIR 1985 SC 73). it has been observed :- "..........The possession thus initially being permissive, the burden was heavy on the appellant to establish that it became adverse. A possession of a co-owner or of a licensee or of an agent or a permissive possession to become adverse must be established by cogent and convincing evidence to show hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of real owner. Mere possession for howsoever length of time does not result in converting the permissive possession into adverse possession." ( 8. ) Relying upon the same, the Apex Court in the case of Roop Singh (Dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Ram Singh (Dead) through L.Rs. (2000) 3 SCC 708 , has held that if a person gets possession of suit land under permission, then from the permissive possession, it is for him to establish by cogent and convincing evidence to show hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of the real owner. It is further observed that mere possession for a long time does not result in converting permissive possession into adverse possession. ( 9. It is further observed that mere possession for a long time does not result in converting permissive possession into adverse possession. ( 9. ) Plaintiff (PW-I) has clearly stated in paragraph 2 that he had obtained the suit land for cultivation from defendants about 30 years before. He has further stated that he had obtained it for cultivation from Mujiya, Betliya, Halka and Bhugiya (defendants No. I to 4). Possession was obtained in presence of other villagers. Aforesaid defendants visited the suit land for handing over possession on site. Documentation was made. Deed was prepared by Kanchedi which was witnessed by Surat Singh and Parwat Singh. He has further clearly stated that the document was kept at his residence. Aforesaid version has been disbelieved by the learned Appellate Judge on the basis of paragraph 3 of statement of PW-I wherein it was stated that no documentation was made in respect of the suit land. It is further stated in paragraph 3 that PW-1 had not given any statement that any document was executed in respect of the suit land which was witnessed by Kanchedi. It was also not stated by him that Surat Singh had witnessed the said document. ( 10. ) Thus, what has been denied in paragraph 3 of the statement of PW-1 is that no document was made and the witness had not made any statement about execution of the document which was witnessed by Kanchedi and Surat Singh. ( 11. ) It is pertinent to note here that the plaintiff has not denied anywhere that he had obtained possession of the suit land from the defendants for cultivation. He has also not denied that possession was delivered to him by defendants. Thus, even if paragraph 3 of PW-1 is taken into consideration, factum of obtaining possession by the plaintiff from defendants is not vitiated at all. This version remained undisturbed despite the contents of paragraph 3. It amounted to admission on the part of the plaintiff that the possession of the suit land was obtained by him from defendants under a permission. There is no iota in the plaint about any overtact by which possession may be said to have been converted into adverse possession. Equally, the plaintiff has failed to plead and prove that how did his possession become adverse to that of defendants. ( 12. There is no iota in the plaint about any overtact by which possession may be said to have been converted into adverse possession. Equally, the plaintiff has failed to plead and prove that how did his possession become adverse to that of defendants. ( 12. ) Shri J.P. Mishra, learned counsel, contended that the lower appellate court is final court of facts and the findings recorded by it cannot be disturbed in the absence of perversity. Learned counsel Shri Mishra is correct on this point. However, it may be seen that admission with regard to obtaining suit land from the defendants and delivery of possession bv them of the suit land to the plaintiff has not been denied even in paragraph 3 which has been relied upon by the learned ADJ. Admission made in a particular case is best proof unless it has been successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. In the present case, the admission of the plaintiff himself (PW-1) about obtaining possession from the defendants for cultivation and handing over of tile suit land by them to the plaintiffs for cultivation is not proved erroneous even in paragraph 3 of his statement. Withdrawal of admission is merely in respect of the document and its execution including attestation. Rest of the admission made by the plaintiff remained intact. In the case of Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale Vs. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and others ( AIR 1960 SC 100 ), it has been clearly held:-. ....An admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon, and though not conclusive is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. ( 13. ) At this juncture, I am hastened to add that cross-examination on the plaintiff Hallu (PW-1) was conducted on 02-03-1989 when in paragraph 2 of statement on oath he stated that the suit land was obtained by him for cultivation from defendants No. 1 to 4. They had visited the suit land and had delivered its possession to him. Document was prepared by Kanchhedi Baniya, which was executed by defendants No. 1 to 4 and was attested by Suraj Singh and Parwat Singh as witnesses. Document was kept by him at his residence. Cross-examination on this witness could not be concluded on that day for shortage of time, therefore, case was adjourned. However, cross-examination was resumed on 01-09-1989. Document was prepared by Kanchhedi Baniya, which was executed by defendants No. 1 to 4 and was attested by Suraj Singh and Parwat Singh as witnesses. Document was kept by him at his residence. Cross-examination on this witness could not be concluded on that day for shortage of time, therefore, case was adjourned. However, cross-examination was resumed on 01-09-1989. In the meantime, plaintiff (PW-1) got ample time for preparing himself for further cross-examination. It has brought a change in the statement of PW-1, who on 01-09-1989 resiled from his earlier version. In paragraph 3 of his cross-examination, he denied to have given any statement about documentation. He has gone to the extent that earlier version recorded by learned trial Judge about execution of the document was not made by him. Learned lower appellate Judge while reversing the judgment has failed to take into consideration aforesaid demeanour of the witness which seems to be an outcome of adjournment for six months and getting opportunity to improve the statement as an after thought. Therefore, finding on , this point of learned ADJ is patently perverse and is hereby set aside. ( 14. ) Plaintiff after entering into possession under a permission from defendants was obliged to prove that when did his possession become adverse. There is no such averment in the plaint and further there is no proof on record. This being so, the plaintiffs cannot be said to have acquired title by virtue of adverse possession on the date of the suit. Accordingly, substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellants. ( 15. ) As regards I.A. No.3377/01 (under Order XXLI Rule 27 of CPC), it is suffice to observe that the Civil Suit was instituted on 06.07.85 whereas the proposed documents are of the year 1990 and onwards. Thus, these documents were and are not necessary for deciding the controversy involved in the suit. I.A. is hereby rejected. ( 16. ) Since the plaintiffs have been in Possession of the suit land, their possession is liable to be protected. This being so, decree for permanent injunction in their favour is not being disturbed and the decree to that extent deserves to be maintained. ( 17. ) Eventually, this Court declines to interfere in the decree for perpetual injunction granted to the plaintiffs. In the result, appeal is hereby partly allowed. This being so, decree for permanent injunction in their favour is not being disturbed and the decree to that extent deserves to be maintained. ( 17. ) Eventually, this Court declines to interfere in the decree for perpetual injunction granted to the plaintiffs. In the result, appeal is hereby partly allowed. Suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of title is hereby dismissed However, looking to the long possession of the plaintiffs, restraint order against the defendants is hereby confirmed. Decree be modified accordingly. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.