JUDGEMENT Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. 1. The original Plaintiff, Kesho Sao had filed this First Appeal against the Judgment and decree dated, 16th April, 1981 passed by Sri Anand Kumar Verma, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge II, Munger in Title Suit No. 14 of 1973/19 of 1980 dismissing the Plaintiffs suit. The original Plaintiff-Appellant, Kesho Sao died during the pendency of the appeal and his Legal representatives, Jai Prakash and others have been substituted. 2. The Plaintiff filed the aforesaid title suit for declaration of title and for declaration that the Defendants have got no right, title or interest on the suit land and they have got no right to continue in occupation thereof. The Plaintiff also prayed for decree for eviction of the Defendants and also prayed that the Defendants may be directed to give vacant possession of the suit land to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also prayed for arrears of rent and damages. 3. The Plaintiff prayed for the aforesaid relieves on the facts that the suit land described in Scheduled 1 of the plaint was under the jamindari of Late Nawab Abdul Wahab Khan. Sheikh Abdul Sattar, Sheikh Abdul Hai and Sheikh Abdul Haque, sons of Sheikh Shafaitullah were the tenants in occupation thereof. After the death of landlord, Nawab Abdul Wahab Khan, his widow, sons and daughters succeeded to the jamindari right of Scheduled-1 property. In Money Suit No. 154 of 1947, a decree was obtained against the tenants and in execution of the said decree i.e. Execution Case No. 191 of 1948, the suit property was auction purchased by the heirs of Nawab Abdul Wahab Khan. The sale certificate dated, 11th August, 1949 was issued. Delivery of possession was obtained by the auction purchasers on 19th November, 1949 and thereafter, the auction purchasers came in Khas possession of the property. In 1951, there was partition amongst the heirs and the suit property exclusively fell in the share of Masomat Bibi Maimuna Sultana Begum, who came in possession. The suit land was a vacant piece of land. She let out the suit land to one Raghunandan Prasad Singh, who used to hold a coal depot. In 1963, one Mithoo Ram took the suit land on rent and he continued to be tenant till April 1970. Thereafter, the Defendants, first party approached Bibi Maimuna Sultana Begum, who inducted them as tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 30 only. She let out the suit land to one Raghunandan Prasad Singh, who used to hold a coal depot. In 1963, one Mithoo Ram took the suit land on rent and he continued to be tenant till April 1970. Thereafter, the Defendants, first party approached Bibi Maimuna Sultana Begum, who inducted them as tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 30 only. A written agreement was entered into between Raj Kumar Prasad and Bibi Maimuna Sultana Begum through her brother and Mokhtar- Am Nawabzada Shahabuddin Ahmad Khan on 1st August, 1970. The Defendant No. 2 signed as witness in the said deed. Only western half portion was let out to the Defendants, first party and the eastern half portion was lying vacant. In course of time, the Defendants, first party with the permission of Bibi Maimuna Sultana Begum occupied the eastern half portion also for the purpose of coal depot. 4. The further case of the Plaintiff is that he entered into contract with Bibi Maimuna Sultana Begum on 15th July, 1971 for purchase of the suit land and before sale deed could be executed, Bibi Maimuna Sultana Begum died and thereafter, her heirs executed a Registered sale deed on 12th April, 1972 in favour of the Plaintiff transferring the suit land for Rs. 12,500. The Plaintiff purchased the suit land for his own necessity and wanted to build a house thereon. He requested the Defendants to vacate the suit land but, they did not vacate. He served Legal notice but, the Defendants denied relationship of landlord and tenant and claimed title over the suit land. It is stated that the Defendants have got no right, title or interest on the suit land. In spite of determination of tenancy, the Defendants neither paid the rent nor vacated the suit land. Hence, the suit was filed. 5. On being noticed, the Defendants appeared and filed a contesting written statement. Their defence in short is that the suit, as framed, is not maintainable, the suit is barred by law of limitation, the suit is barred by principles of Estoppel, Waiver and Acquiescence and also Specific Relief Act. Besides taking other various Legal pleas, it was contended that Bibi Maimuna Sultana Begum never inducted tenant. Raghunandan Prasad was never a tenant on the suit land nor he had coal depot. Mithoo Ram was also not a tenant since 1963 to 1970. Besides taking other various Legal pleas, it was contended that Bibi Maimuna Sultana Begum never inducted tenant. Raghunandan Prasad was never a tenant on the suit land nor he had coal depot. Mithoo Ram was also not a tenant since 1963 to 1970. The Defendants, first party were also never a tenant and no agreement was executed. The Defendants have been in possession on the suit land on their own right for more than 12 years without any hindrance from anyone continuously and without any interruption. They are in possession not as a tenant but, on their own right. The agreement to sale between Maimuna Begum with Plaintiff was denied. It is stated that she had no right, title or possession. The partition of the year 1951 is denied. The alleged sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff is denied and it is stated that the sale deed is not genuine and is not for consideration nor it confer title on Plaintiff. It is further stated that the Plaintiff never purchased the suit property for his personal necessity. All other allegations made in the plaint are denied by the Defendants. At Paragraph 21 of the written statement, it was stated that in fact, the Defendants got the land from the recorded tenant 20 years ago and since then, the Defendants have been coming in possession of the suit land without any hindrance adversely to the Plaintiff and others continuously for more than 20 years and have thus, acquired title by.adverse possession also. The Defendants made construction on the suit land more than 12 years ago and inducted tenants and also carrying on a wood business for more than 12 years. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Court below framed 8 issues. The main issues regarding title are Issue Nos. 5 and 6. Issue No. 5 is "whether claim of the Plaintiff that he acquired Legal title on the suit land is correct and the Defendants, first party and second party have no right, title and interest on the suit land." Issue No. 6 is "whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the suit land after dispossessing the Defendants." 7. After trial, the learned Court below found that the Plaintiff failed to establish his title and possession over the suit land. After trial, the learned Court below found that the Plaintiff failed to establish his title and possession over the suit land. The learned Court below also found that the Defendants are in possession at least since 1956 and their possession is open, continuous and without any hindrance with knowledge of everyone, therefore, they acquired title by adverse possession. Even if it is said that they could not proved the gift then also they have acquired title by adverse possession. On this finding, the learned Court below dismissed the Plaintiffs suit. 8. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Matin appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the learned Court below has wrongly approached the case and because of that, wrongly dismissed the Plaintiffs case, although, the Plaintiff has proved the suit Register of the money suit, the delivery of possession report and also the sale deed executed by heirs of Maimuna Begum in favour of the Plaintiff. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Plaintiff also proved his case by adducing oral evidences but, the learned Court below has wrongly discarded those documentary and/oral evidences and dismissed the Plaintiffs case. The learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Court below without discussing the Legal position about adverse possession held that the Defendants have acquired title by adverse possession. According to the learned Counsel, mere possession howsoever long it is, it cannot constitute adverse possession and the evidences adduced on behalf of the Defendant is that they are in possession continuously for last either 12 years or 20 years. The learned Counsel further submitted that at one place, the Defendants claimed title on the basis of gift i.e. the recorded tenant gave the land to them whereas at one place they claimed title on the basis of adverse possession. So two inconsistent pleas have been taken by the Defendants. According to the learned Counsel, pleas of title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. According to the learned Counsel, the learned Court below has not at all considered these principles of law and held that the Defendants have acquired title by adverse possession. As stated above, nobody appears on behalf of the Respondents. 9. According to the learned Counsel, the learned Court below has not at all considered these principles of law and held that the Defendants have acquired title by adverse possession. As stated above, nobody appears on behalf of the Respondents. 9. In view of the above facts and the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the points for consideration in this appeal are: (i) Whether the Plaintiff has been able to prove his title over the suit land and whether he is entitled to recover possession after evicting and dispossessing the Defendants? (ii) Whether the Defendants have been able to prove their title by adverse possession and whether the impugned Judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below is sustainable? 10. The parties have adduced oral as well as documentary evidences in support of their cases. P.W. 1, Md. Abbas has proved the sale deed dated, 12th April, 1972 in favour of the Plaintiff, Kesho Sao. P.W. 2, Ramchandra Sao has stated that the suit land earlier belonged to Nawab Sahab of Munger. Previously, one Mithoo Ram had a coal depot on it. Thereafter, Asharfi and his sons Raj Kumar etc. are carrying on coal depot business since last 10 years. Now, the suit land belonged to Kesho Sao. Kesho Sao purchased the same eight years ago and when Kesho Sao went to take possession, dispute started. 11. P.W. 3 to P.W. 6 are formal witness. P.W. 7, Parmeshwar Sao has also stated that earlier the suit land belonged to Sheikh Sahab. The said land was purchased by Nawab Sahab in auction. Thereafter, Mithoo Ram started coal business on it. His coal depot continued for 7-8 years and thereafter, the suit land remained vacant from sometimes. After 7-8 years, Asharfi Mandal opened coal depot since 6-7 years. P.W. 8, Ram Kishun Prasad also stated that Mithoo Ram opened a coal depot on the suit land and continued for 6-7 years. After Mithoo Ram, the Defendant, Asharfi opened coal depot. Mithoo Ram had taken the suit land on rent of Rs. 30 per month. P.W. 9, Siddheshwar Yadav has also stated that Mithoo Ram was tenant under Nawab Sahab and had a coal business for 6-7 years. After Mithoo Ram, Asharfi Mandal started wood business on the suit land and is there since last 10 years. Mithoo Ram had taken the suit land on rent of Rs. 30 per month. P.W. 9, Siddheshwar Yadav has also stated that Mithoo Ram was tenant under Nawab Sahab and had a coal business for 6-7 years. After Mithoo Ram, Asharfi Mandal started wood business on the suit land and is there since last 10 years. Kesho Sao had purchased the suit land and while tried to take possession, dispute started between the Defendants. In the cross-examination, he has stated that many times, he has gone to purchase coal from Mithoo Ram. P.W. 11 is formal witness. P.W. 12, Nageshwar Prasad has stated that he look after the estate of Nawabzada Shahabuddin Ahmad Khan of Munger. He is ill and not in a position to depose. He had produced some papers from Nawabzada which was called for by the Court. This witness produced the papers in the Court. He has stated that fathers name of Nawabzada is Nawab Abdul Wahab Khan, who died leaving behind two sons and five daughters and one widow. The name of eldest son is Nawabzada Shahabuddin Ahmad Khan and the name of eldest daughter is Bibi Maimuna Sultana. The name of husband of Maimuna is Gayasuddin who lives at Patna. Maimuna Begum died. At Paragraph 3, this witness has described the Plot nos. and khata nos. of the land. At Paragraph 4, he has stated that Nawabzada and his brothers had filed a rent suit against heirs of Shaffaitullah. The said rent suit was decreed and in the execution case, the suit land was auction sold and the decree holders purchased the same and obtained delivery of possession through Court. At Paragraph 6, this witness has specifically stated that after obtaining possession, there had been partition between the heirs of Nawabzada and the suit land fell in the share of Bibi Maimuna Sultana. Bibi Maimuna Sultana was mutated in the office of State of Bihar and also in municipality. This witness also produced the said papers. He has further stated that she had obtained permission to construct a house thereon. Map was also passed by municipality. He also produced the map. He stated that thereafter, they did not construct house. At Paragraph 7 and 8, he has stated that the suit land was given on rent to one Raghunandan through agreement. He also produced the agreement. He has further stated that she had obtained permission to construct a house thereon. Map was also passed by municipality. He also produced the map. He stated that thereafter, they did not construct house. At Paragraph 7 and 8, he has stated that the suit land was given on rent to one Raghunandan through agreement. He also produced the agreement. He proved the signature of Raghunandan which has been marked Exh.-4/a. At Paragraph 9, he has stated that Mithoo Ram was subsequently inducted as tenant through agreement. He also proved the agreement which has been marked Exh.-8. He also proved the signature of Suresh Prasad which has been marked as Exh.-4/b. At Paragraph 10, he proved the agreement of Raj Kumar, Defendant No. 1. The signature of Raj Kumar has been marked as Exh.-4/c. At Paragraph 12, he has stated that the Plaintiff, Kesho Sao has purchased the land. P.W. 16, Jai Prakash is son of Kesho Sao. He has also fully supported the case of the Plaintiff. P.W. 17 is Kesho Sao himself. He has fully supported the case as made out in the plaint. 12. Exh.-1 is the sale deed dated, 12th April, 1972 which was executed in favour of the Plaintiff, Kesho Sao. Exh.-2 and 3 are notices to the Defendants in 1972 sent by the Plaintiff. Exh.- 4/a is the signature of Raghunandan on agreement dated, 1st October, 1961 which has been proved in support of the fact that Raghunandan was a tenant under the vendor of the Plaintiff. Exh.-4/b is signature of Suresh, Defendant No. 2 on agreement dated, 15th November, 1963. This agreement is in favour of Mithoo Ram. Exh.-4/c to 4/e are signatures of Raj Kumar Prasad, Defendant No. 1 on agreement dated, 1st August, 1970. By this agreement, the Defendant No. 1 was inducted as tenant on the suit land. The agreement dated, 15th November, 1963 has been marked as Exh.-8. Exh.-8/a is agreement dated, 1st August, 1970 and Exh.-8/b are the agreement dated, 1st October, 1961. These agreements have been produced by the Plaintiff in support of his case that at different times, Raghunandan and Mithoo Ram were the tenants and in 1970, the Defendant No. 1 was inducted as tenant. Exh.-18 is permission granted to Bibi Maimuna for making construction on the suit land. These documents have been filed to prove that in fact, she wanted to construct house thereon. Exh.-18 is permission granted to Bibi Maimuna for making construction on the suit land. These documents have been filed to prove that in fact, she wanted to construct house thereon. 13. The most important documents are Exh.-14, the suit Register of Money Suit No. 154 of 1947. Exh.-15 is auction sale certificate. It appears that after the Plaintiffs death in money suit in his place his Legal representatives including the vendor of the Plaintiff were substituted. Exh.-12 is Order directing Nazir to deliver possession to the auction purchaser and Exh.-11 is the report of delivery of possession in favour of decree holder including the Plaintiffs vendor. Exh.-17 is the municipality survey khatiyan of the year 1968. From perusal of the same, it appears that the name of vendor of the Plaintiff is recorded therein. These are the oral evidences and documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff. 14. From perusal of the impugned Judgment, it appears that the learned Court below disbelieved the report of delivery of possession on the ground that the person, who prepared the report has not been examined. The learned Court below also observed that P.W. 18 has stated that delivery of possession was affected in his presence but, he stated that the witness refused to sign, so, Mahabir signed on it. Therefore, the signature of Mahabir Mandal is not reliable. P.W. 18 has admitted that he has not written anything on the Writ and P.W. 18 is unable to say the boundary of the suit land and on the basis of this discussion, the learned Court below came to the conclusion that delivery of possession was not given. In my opinion, the learned Court below has wrongly found the same and the reason assigned by the Court below is untenable. From the pleadings of the Defendants, it appears that no such case was made out by the Defendant. As stated above, the documents relating to the money suit, the execution case, the Writ for delivery of possession and report of delivery of possession were produced. These documents have been disbelieved only on the oral evidence of P.W. 18. Although, P.W. 18 has stated that in his presence, delivery of possession was affected. The Defendants have only denied the allegations made in the plaint. Evasive denial is no denial. There is no specific denial about the delivery of possession. These documents have been disbelieved only on the oral evidence of P.W. 18. Although, P.W. 18 has stated that in his presence, delivery of possession was affected. The Defendants have only denied the allegations made in the plaint. Evasive denial is no denial. There is no specific denial about the delivery of possession. The genuineness of the documents have not been challenged by the Defendants. I, therefore, find that the reasons assigned by the learned Court below for not believing those documents are not sound. Likewise, the learned Court below has disbelieved P.W. 12 on the ground that he heard all these matters from Nawabzada 3-4 days earlier. From perusal of Paragraph 36 of the cross-examination of P.W. 12, it appears that he has stated that Nawabzada has told him about the rent suit 3-4 days ago. Only on this ground, the evidence of P.W. 12 could not have been discarded. He has produced the documentary evidences. He has fully supported the case of the Plaintiff. I, therefore, find that the Court below has wrongly discarded the evidence of P.W. 12 on the ground that he is hearsay. The learned Court below has also disbelieved the partition of the year 1951 on the ground that P.W. 12 has stated that in his presence partition did not took place. So far this ground is concerned also, it is not available because Exh.-17 clearly shows that Bibi Maimuna Begum was mutated in the municipality. The other reason assigned by the Court below that the Plaintiff and his son P.W. 17 and P.W. 16 were also not present in partition and therefore, the Plaintiffs failed to prove that in partition, the suit land fell in the share of Maimuna Begum. In my opinion, the approach of the learned Court below is wrong. It is not necessary that one should be physically present and witness the partition affected between the co-sharer. In this case, the evidence of P.W. 16, P.W. 17, P.W. 12 coupled with Exh. 17, 18 and Exh.-10 series, the receipts clearly proves that the property fell in the share of Plaintiffs vendor. There is no other evidence contrary to this that the property fell in the share of any other person. Moreover, the claim of the Defendants is based on adverse possession, they have not produced any title document. 17, 18 and Exh.-10 series, the receipts clearly proves that the property fell in the share of Plaintiffs vendor. There is no other evidence contrary to this that the property fell in the share of any other person. Moreover, the claim of the Defendants is based on adverse possession, they have not produced any title document. Their case is not that the property belongs to any other person and they have inherited or acquired the said land either through purchase or any other means. Therefore, so far title of the Plaintiff is concerned, it is one-sided. The Plaintiff has clearly proved how the Plaintiff purchased the property from rightful owner. 15. For proving delivery of possession, it was not necessary either to examine the Peon or Nazir. The documentary evidences adduced by the Plaintiffs sufficiently proves that delivery of possession was affected. The Plaintiffs vendor got the suit land in her share and thereafter, she entered into agreement with the Plaintiff and then lastly sold the property to the Plaintiff in 1972 through Registered sale deed, Exh.-1. As stated above, the learned Court below without any cogent reason has disbelieved the evidence of the Plaintiff. Admittedly, no other person is claiming title over the same. The Defendant is claiming adverse possession. It may be mentioned here that adverse possession pre-supposes that title rests on other person against whom adverse possession is claimed. 16. Let us consider the evidences adduced on behalf of the Defendants. According to the Defendants case, the recorded tenant had given the suit land to them in 1947. No Registered documents have been produced to show the transfer of the suit land in favour of the Defendant. Without there being any Registered transfer deed, title will not pass to the Defendant. Admittedly, the valuation of the suit is Rs. 13,000 and therefore, the valuation of the suit property was more than Rs. 100 in the year 1947. It is well-settled principles of law that by mere admission title will not pass. The witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendants i.e. D.W. 9, D.W. 12, D.W. 13 and D.W. 19 have stated that the suit property was given to the Defendants by Shaffaitullah in the year 1947. D.W. 15, who is Defendant No. 1 himself has stated that they are in possession since 30-32 years as owner thereof. The witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendants i.e. D.W. 9, D.W. 12, D.W. 13 and D.W. 19 have stated that the suit property was given to the Defendants by Shaffaitullah in the year 1947. D.W. 15, who is Defendant No. 1 himself has stated that they are in possession since 30-32 years as owner thereof. D.W. 17, who is Defendant No. 2, at Paragraph 2, has also stated that he is in possession of the suit land as owner. 17. D.W. 4 to D.W. 7 are the tenants of the Defendant No. 1. They have stated that they are tenants of the Defendants. They have shop rooms on the suit land. The Defendants have also adduced documentary evidences. Exh.-D series are rent receipts. Exh.-E series are vouchers and Exh.-F series are money receipts which prove the possession of the Defendants on the suit premises. These are the oral and documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the Defendants. Now, therefore, the Defendants claimed title on two accounts. Firstly, that the suit land was given to them by Shaffaitullah in the year 1947. If this case is believed, then they entered into the suit land with the permission of Shaffaitullah. Therefore, their possession will be permissive possession. As discussed above, title will not pass on them. Secondly, they claimed that they acquired title by adverse possession. To prove the title, no documentary evidences have been adduced by the Defendants. So far acquiring title by adverse possession is concerned, oral evidences have been adduced to the effect that they are coming in possession since long openly and adversely without any interruption. As stated above, the Defendant nos. 1 and 2 in their evidences as D.W. 15 and D.W. 17, have stated that they are coming in possession on the suit land as owner thereof. It may be mentioned here that ownership and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent. If they are in possession as owner thereof, no question of prescribing title by adverse possession arises. Adverse possession pre-supposes that the Plaintiff admits title of the other tout, he is possessing the property denying the title of true owner. The Honble Supreme Court in a decision reported in 2004 (3) PLJR, Page 245, Supreme Court (Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and Ors.), Honble Supreme Court at Paragraphs 11 and 12 has held as follows: 11. The Honble Supreme Court in a decision reported in 2004 (3) PLJR, Page 245, Supreme Court (Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and Ors.), Honble Supreme Court at Paragraphs 11 and 12 has held as follows: 11. In the eye of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time wont affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of true owner. It is a well-settled principle that ,a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. [See: S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakinal AIR 1964 SC 1254 , Parsinni v. Sukhi (1993) 4 SCC 375 and D.N.Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 567 ]. Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but, a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. [Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma (1996) 8 SCC 128 ]. 12. Plaintiff, filing a title suit should be very clear about the origin of title over the property. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. [Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma (1996) 8 SCC 128 ]. 12. Plaintiff, filing a title suit should be very clear about the origin of title over the property. He must specifically plead it. (See: S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakinal AIR 1964 SC 1254 ). In P. Perlasami v. P. Periathambi (1995) 6 SCC 523 this Court ruled that: Whenever the plea of adverse possession is projected, inherent in the plea is that someone else was the owner of the property." The pleas on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. Dealing with Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639 that is similar to the case in hand, this Court held: As regards the first plea, it is inconsistent with the second plea. Having come into possession under the agreement, he must disclaim his right thereunder and plead and prove assertion of his independent hostile adverse possession to the knowledge of the transferor or his successor in title or interest and that the latter had acquiesced to his illegal possession during the entire period of 12 years, i.e., up to completing the period his title by prescription nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. Since the Appellants claim is founded on Section 53-A, it goes without saying that he admits by implication that he came into possession of land lawfully under the agreement and continued to remain in possession till date of the suit. Thereby the plea of adverse possession is not available to the Appellant. 18. In the present case, the Plaintiffs have adduced overwhelming evidences oral as well as documentary but, the learned Court below disbelieved the same on one or the other untenable grounds. Learned Court below believed the Defendants case of adverse possession, although, the Defendants have been able to prove their long possession only as owner. As has been held by the Honble Supreme Court, the pleas on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. Learned Court below believed the Defendants case of adverse possession, although, the Defendants have been able to prove their long possession only as owner. As has been held by the Honble Supreme Court, the pleas on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. Admittedly, according to the Defendants case themselves, they came in possession on the permission of Shaffaitullah, then from which date they started claiming adverse possession against the transferee is not clear. They must disclaim their right as owner through Shaffaitullah and thereafter, prove assertion of their independent hostile adverse possession to the knowledge of the transferor or his successor in title or interest and that the latter had acquiesced to his illegal possession during the entire period of 12 years. In the present case, as stated and discussed above, only long possession has been shown. In a decision reported in 2010 AIR SCW 977 (Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah), the Honble Supreme Court at Paragraphs 32 and 33 has held as follows: 32. Before concluding, we may notice two recent Judgments in which law on the question of acquisition of title by adverse possession has been considered and reiterated. In Annakili v. A. Vedanayagam 2007 (14) SCC 308 : AIR 2007 SCW 6892 , the Court observed as under: Claim by adverse possession has two elements: (1) the possession of the Defendant should become adverse to the Plaintiff and (2) the Defendant must continue to remain in possession for a period of 12 years thereafter. Animus possidendi as is well known is a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. It is now a well-settled principle of law that mere possession of the land would not ripen into possessory title for the said purpose. Possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. For the said purpose, not only animus possidendi must be shown to exist, but, the same must be shown to exist at the commencement of the possession. He must continue in the said capacity for the period prescribed under the Limitation Act. Mere long possession, it is trite, for a period of more than 12 years without anything more does not ripen into a title. 33. He must continue in the said capacity for the period prescribed under the Limitation Act. Mere long possession, it is trite, for a period of more than 12 years without anything more does not ripen into a title. 33. In P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma 2007 (6) SCC 59 : 2007 AIR SCW 2897, the Court considered various facets of the law of adverse possession and laid down various propositions including the following: Adverse possession in one sense is based on the theory or presumption that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessor on the acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person in possession. It follows that sound qualities of a typical adverse possession lie in it being open, continuous and hostile. To assess a claim of adverse possession, two-pronged enquiry is required: 1. Application of limitation provision thereby jurisprudentially "willful neglect" element on part of the owner established. Successful application in this regard distances the title of the land from the paper-owner. 2. Specific positive intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse possessor effectively shifts the title already distanced from the paper-owner, to the adverse possessor. Right thereby accrues in favour of adverse possessor as intent to dispossess is an express statement of urgency and intention in the upkeep of the property. 19. From perusal of the impugned Judgment and decree, it appears that learned Court below has not at all considered the well-settled principles of law regarding adverse possession. Therefore, the finding regarding adverse possession is not sustainable. 20. In view of my above discussion, I find that the Plaintiff has been able to prove his title over the suit property having acquired the same through the Registered sale deed, Exh. 1 from the rightful owner. I also find that the Defendants have failed to prove acquisition of title by adverse possession over the suit land, therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property. The findings of the learned Court below on these points are therefore, set aside and reversed. 21. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and decrees are set aside and the Plaintiffs suit is decreed. In the facts and Circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.