JUDGMENT F.M. Reis. J. - Heard Shri Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above Second appeal was admitted by order dated 18/08/2005 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Courts below are justified in dismissing the plaintiffs suit on the ground of limitation, particularly in a case like this where the parties did not go to trial on that issue?" 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the suit house originally belonged to Mrs. Estafania Pinto, who had one daughter named Natalia Maria De Souza. The said Mrs. Estafania Pinto expired in the year 1943. The mother of the appellant inherited the said property and the suit house upon the death of her mother since she was the sole surviving heir of the said Mrs. Estafania Pinto. Said Mrs. Natalia gave a part of the suit house to the respondent on licence with a condition that the respondent would vacate the suit house when he would construct a new house of his own. The respondent thereafter constructed a new house. The said Mrs. Natalia thereafter requested the respondent to vacate the suit house. However, the respondent delayed in vacating the suit house on one pretext or the other. The said Natalia thereafter asked the respondent to vacate the suit house by letter dated 27/04/1972. Despite of receipt of the said letter the respondent refused to vacate the suit house. Consequently, the said Natalia in the year 1972 left for Karachi to leave with her son. The respondent taking advantage of the absence of the said Natalia took possession of the entire house. The said Mrs. Natalia who was leaving in Karachi thereafter expired somewhere in the year 1973. The appellant being the owner of the suit house requested the respondent to vacate the suit house somewhere in the year 1977, but however the respondent continued to occupy the suit house. Finally, the respondent vacated the suit house in the year 1976. Mrs. Escolastica D'Souza, who is the representative of the appellant went to the suit house and found that the suit house was abandoned and therefore merely took possession of the suit house somewhere in the year 1978. Finally, the respondent vacated the suit house in the year 1976. Mrs. Escolastica D'Souza, who is the representative of the appellant went to the suit house and found that the suit house was abandoned and therefore merely took possession of the suit house somewhere in the year 1978. The respondents thereafter immediately filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act in the year 1978 and by way of the execution proceedings recovered possession of the suit house from the appellants. The attorney of the appellant sent a notice to the respondent to vacate the suit house somewhere on 17/09/1988. The respondent replied to the said notice denying the title of the appellants to the effect that the appellant is not the son of the said Natalia. The appellant thereafter issued a legal notice to the respondent directing him to vacate the suit house on 19/10/1988. The respondents despite of the notice refused to vacate the suit house and consequently the suit was filed by the appellants for declaration that they are the owners of the suit house and the suit property and direct the respondent to quit and vacate the suit house. By judgment and decree dated 16/09/2004 the learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by the limitation. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the appellants preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Panaji which came to be disposed of by judgment and decree dated 3/07/2004, whereby an appeal preferred by the appellants came to be dismissed and the finding of the learned trial Judge to the effect that the suit was barred by law of limitation came to be upheld. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Courts below the appellants have preferred the present Second Appeal which came to be admitted on the aforesaid substantial question of law. 4. Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has pointed out that both the Courts below upon appreciation of evidence on record and going through the documentary evidence adduced by the parties have come to the conclusion that the appellants have established their ownership in respect of the suit property and the house. 4. Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has pointed out that both the Courts below upon appreciation of evidence on record and going through the documentary evidence adduced by the parties have come to the conclusion that the appellants have established their ownership in respect of the suit property and the house. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the relief which has been sought by the appellants is with regard to the suit house which was in occupation of the appellants which the appellants were forced to surrender in view of the judgment passed in favour of the respondents pursuant to the said suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned Counsel has taken me through the findings of the Courts below and pointed out that it is well settled that possession follows title and considering that the Courts below have decided the issue with regard to the adverse possession and prescription against the respondents, the question of refusing delivery of possession of the suit house would not arise. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation without considering Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the suit is based on title and consequently taking note that the respondents have not established that they are in adverse possession of the suit house the question of refusing possession of the suit house would not arise. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that the substantial question of law would have to be answered in favour of the appellants. 5. On the other hand. Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that the period during which the proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act were in progress is to be counted in favour of the respondents to establish that the suit filed by the appellants is barred by law of limitation. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that considering that there was a notice which was already issued to the appellants to terminate the licence the suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation which is twelve years from the date of such termination. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that considering that there was a notice which was already issued to the appellants to terminate the licence the suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation which is twelve years from the date of such termination. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that considering that the suit is barred by limitation the Courts below were justified to pass the impugned judgment. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the property around the suit house which was not the subject matter of the suit. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that considering that both the Courts below have concurrently found that the suit is barred by limitation the question of interference by this Court under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code would not arise. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the substantial question of law is to be answered in favour of the respondents. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and have also gone through the records. On perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Judge it cannot be disputed that the learned trial Judge after appreciating the material on record by judgment dated 16/09/2000 has come to the conclusion that as far as the title of the appellants over the suit property there was no dispute on that count. The learned Judge upon appreciating the evidence on record has decided issue Nos. 3 and 5 in favour of the appellants and has come to the conc1usion that the possession of the respondents cannot be held to be adverse. The learned Judge has framed an additional issue with regard to limitation and decided the said issue in favour of the respondents and dismissed the suit as it was barred by limitation. The Lower Appellate Court whilst disposing of the appeal preferred by the appellants by judgment dated 3/07/2004 has come to the conclusion that the respondents were in possession of the suit house and dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit is barred by law of limitation. 7. From the findings of the Courts below it cannot be disputed that there was no serious dispute in respect of the title of the appellants over the suit property and the suit house. 7. From the findings of the Courts below it cannot be disputed that there was no serious dispute in respect of the title of the appellants over the suit property and the suit house. The relief in the present case is for restoration of the possession of the suit house which according to the appellants is illegally occupied by the respondents. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act clearly provides that after the suit under Section 6 has been disposed of it cannot preclude the parties to file the suit for possession based on title. Considering that aspect the appellants were justified to file the suit for restoration of the possession of the suit house based on title. Both the Courts below did not accept the contentions of the respondents that they were in adverse possession of the suit house. Considering the provisions of Article 65 of the Limitation Act the suit for restoration of possession is to be filed within 12 years from the date the possession is adverse. The respondents failed to establish that they were in adverse possession of the suit house and as such the question of holding that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is totally misplaced. In the present case, taking note of the fact that the appellants were the owners of the suit house the question of depriving them of the possession of the suit house would not arise. Merely because of the delay in filing the suit it cannot be said that once the notice for termination has been issued by the appellants the possession of such licencee has become adverse to the owner. In any event for the purpose of claiming adverse possession one has to establish that a party is in hostile possession for 12 years. In the present case, there is nothing to disclose that there was any hostile possession which would entitle the respondents for adverse possession. The suit filed by the appellants was not barred by law of limitation as held by the Courts below. In the present case, when the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was pending admittedly the possession of the suit house was with the owner/appellants. The suit filed by the appellants was not barred by law of limitation as held by the Courts below. In the present case, when the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was pending admittedly the possession of the suit house was with the owner/appellants. Such possession by no stretch of imagination can be attributed to the respondents as sought to be contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. In the present case, on perusal of the judgment of the learned Trial Judge dated 16/09/2000, I find that whilst arriving at a finding on issues No.2 & 4, the learned Judge has categorically come to the conclusion that the mother of the defendant No.1 granted the licence to the respondent to occupy the suit house in the capacity as a licencee and the same licence was in respect of the entire house and not a part of the suit house. Even while arriving at a fining with regard to issue No.4, the learned trial Judge has found that the occupation of the respondent was only that of a licencee and consequently their a possession can never be deemed to be adverse. The learned Judge further found that on termination of such licence the respondents have no right at all to continue to possess the suit house. It cannot be disputed that by permissive possession no right, title or interest is acquired in the suit property. In the present case, the Lower Appellate Court in the appeal preferred by the appellants has in fact not disturbed the said findings of the learned trial Judge. The said findings of the learned Judge with regard to the ownership of the appellants and that the respondents were occupying the suit house as licencee have been arrived at by duly analyzing the evidence and appreciating the factual matrix of the case and the evidence produced by the parties. The respondents have not challenged the said finding arrived at by the Courts below. Hence, the fact that the respondents were occupying the suit premises only as licencees has to be accepted. 9. The view taken by me herein above is supported by the observations in the judgment reported in AIR 1979 All 54 in the case of Nirmala Chand v. Gaya Prasad Dikshit & Anr, wherein it has been observed at paras 15, 16 and 18 thus : 15. 9. The view taken by me herein above is supported by the observations in the judgment reported in AIR 1979 All 54 in the case of Nirmala Chand v. Gaya Prasad Dikshit & Anr, wherein it has been observed at paras 15, 16 and 18 thus : 15. If occupation by A of an Immovable property belonging to B is to operate as a vestive fact, his possession must be adverse to that of B. There is a real distinction between adverse possession and possession simpliciter. Possession in order to be adverse must be hostile to that of the true owner. If it is to be a vestive fact the intent to possess in one's own right must be there, adverse possession cannot operate in vacuo. I am clearly of the opinion that the Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies not merely to the want of actual possession by the real owner, it comes into play only when the person in actual occupation for the statutory period is in such occupation in denial of the title of the true owner. The fundamental principle of law is that there can be no adverse possession without animus to prescribe. In other words, there can be no acquisitive prescription without the intent to acquire property of which another is the owner. See B. Budhram Rai v. Benarsi Rai, AIR 1948 All 31; Smt. Bibhabati Devi v. Ramendra Narayan Roy, Lachhimi Nath Pathak v. Bholanath Pathak, AIR 1964 All 383 and State Bank of Travancore v. Arvindan Kunju Panicker, AIR 1971 SC 996 . 16. The view which I have taken above also finds support from the following dictum of Lord Denning Master of the Rolls in Wallis's Cayton Bay Holiday Camp Ltd. v. Shell-Mex, (1974) 3 WLR 387 : "Possession by itself is not enough to give a title. It must be adverse possession. The true owner must have discontinued possession or have been dispossessed and another must. have taken it adversely to him. There must be something in the nature of an ouster of the true owner by the wrongful possessor." For the reasons herein above stated I am of the view that mere service of notice by Dr. Rama Shanker, revoking the licence of Dixit, without anything more did not create any cloud on the title of Dr. Rama Shanker. There must be something in the nature of an ouster of the true owner by the wrongful possessor." For the reasons herein above stated I am of the view that mere service of notice by Dr. Rama Shanker, revoking the licence of Dixit, without anything more did not create any cloud on the title of Dr. Rama Shanker. There was no secret process, which was set in motion by the said notice for the benefit of Dixit, who was in physical occupation of the disputed portion of the property. 18. From the circumstances in this case, which I have dealt above the forbearance shown by Dr. Rama Shanker in allowing Dixit to continue in possession in spite of the notice dated 26-12-1959 no inference can be drawn that Dr. Rama Shanker intended to abandon his title to portion of the house, the rest of which was admittedly in his possession. 10. 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 won't 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 the true owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nee vi, nee dam, nee preeario", 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, 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. 11. In the present case, the claim of the respondents to adverse possession is unsustainable and in any event the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the respondents have failed to establish their claim of adverse possession. 11. In the present case, the claim of the respondents to adverse possession is unsustainable and in any event the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the respondents have failed to establish their claim of adverse possession. As already observed herein above, as the suit filed by the appellants is based on title and the title has been accepted by the Courts below, the appellants would be entitled for possession of the suit house. Once the claim of adverse possession raised by the respondents has been rejected, there is no reason to refuse the relief of possession to the appellants. It is well settled that possession follows title and in the present case once the party has established title they would be entitled for possession unless the other side has established adverse possession. The Courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the appellants for restoration of possession on the specious ground that the suit is barred by limitation without considering that the cause of action to file such suit based on title starts only when the possession has become adverse. In the present case, as already stated herein above there is no hostile title or adverse possession established by the respondents and consequently the appellants are entitled for restoration of possession of the suit house. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, the substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered in favour of the appellants. In view of the above, I pass the following order : 13. In view of the above. I pass the following order : ORDER (i) The impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Judge dated 16/09/2000 and the judgment dated 3/07/2004 passed by the Lower Appellate Court are quashed and set aside. (ii) The suit filed by the appellants is partly decreed and the respondents are directed to quit and vacate and hand over the keys and peaceful possession of the suit house to the appellants. (iii) The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of