ORDER : 1. By way of present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) the appellants herein-original defendants (hereinafter referred to as “original defendants”) have challenged the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2019 passed by the learned 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) in Special Civil Suit No. 390/2008 by which the trial Court has allowed the suit filed by the respondent herein- original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “original plaintiff”) and directed the original defendants to hand over the possession of the suit property to the original plaintiff within a period of 30 days from the date of the impugned judgment and decree. 2. The original plaintiff, who was on caveat, has been represented by learned advocate Mr. Pradeep Patel. The First Appeal was listed time and again before the Court and ultimately on 26.09.2019, following order was passed by this Court: “Registry is directed to call for the Record and Proceedings of the Special Civil Suit No. 390/2008 decided by the learned 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Maigstrate, Vadodara so as to reach this Court on or before 18.10.2019. Stand over to 22.10.2019.” Accordingly, the Record & Proceedings have reached this Court and placed before this Court for perusal. 3. At the outset, the Court would like to say that since the suit is between close relatives, the Court has tried its level best to see that the dispute is settled amicably between the parties, however the same could not be settled and therefore, the present First Appeal is taken up for hearing today and learned advocates appearing for respective parties have been heard by this Court. 4. 4. The short facts giving rise to present First Appeal are as follows: 4.1 That, the original plaintiff filed the above referred Special Civil Suit No. 390/2008 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara and prayed for a decree of possession of the suit property being a residential house situated at Revenue Survey No. 61 of village Nagarwada, Karelibaug, which is known as Block No. 1 of Shilpi Cooperative Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”) alleging that the original defendants who are real maternal uncles of the original plaintiff were handed over the possession of the suit property so that both the brothers can raise their children who were minors and studying in school. The suit property belonged to Revaben wife of Ambubhai Patel (mother of the original plaintiff). It was the case of the original plaintiff that both the brothers i.e. original defendants were put in possession of the suit property in the year 2002-03 and permitted to use the suit property. 4.2 The original plaintiff who was residing with his parents and family needed the suit property and therefore, requested the original defendants i.e. his maternal uncles to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property which was refused by the original defendants and therefore, a legal notice dated 14.07.2008 (Exh.31) was issued to the original defendants to vacate the suit property. The said notice was duly replied by the original defendants vide their reply dated 25.07.2008 (Exh.60) and denied to hand over the possession of the suit property on the ground that there was an oral Agreement of Sale between the deceased mother of the original plaintiff and the original defendants. In view of the denial by the original defendants, the aforesaid suit came to be filed at the instance of the original plaintiff. 4.3 The original defendants filed their written statement vide Exh.11 and denied the claim put-forth by the original plaintiff and also filed a counter claim asking the original plaintiff to execute the sale deed in favour of original defendants and sought for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale. A contention was also raised by the original defendants that the suit is time barred since the original defendants are in possession of the suit property since 1983. 4.4 The parties produced several documents in support of their respective claim. A contention was also raised by the original defendants that the suit is time barred since the original defendants are in possession of the suit property since 1983. 4.4 The parties produced several documents in support of their respective claim. The trial Court framed the issues at Exh.15. 4.5 The original plaintiff examined himself vide Exh.19 and was also cross-examined on behalf of the original defendants. The original defendants were examined vide Exh.65 and Exh.70 and also examined another witness in support of their claim. The trial Court, after considering the record available with it and after scrutiny of depositions of the witnesses examined on behalf of both the parties, came to the conclusion that the suit filed by the original plaintiff is required to be decreed and counter claim for specific performance of Agreement of Sale is required to be dismissed and accordingly, the suit was decreed. Hence, the present First Appeal. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Arpit Singhvi appearing for the original defendants has vehemently submitted that the trial Court has committed error in allowing the suit and passing the decree of possession. By taking me through the legal notice issued by the original plaintiff, learned advocate appearing for the original defendants would submit that the case put-forth by the original plaintiff was that the original defendants were put in possession of the suit property in the year 2002-03, however infact the record of the society in which the suit property is situated, suggests that the original defendants are residing in the suit property since 1983. By taking me through the share certificate Exh.38, he would submit that the Secretary of the society has issued certificate that one of the original defendants is in possession of the suit property since long. He would submit that the trial Court has also erred in discarding the depositions of original defendants as well as the deposition of witness viz. Geetaben Umeshbhai Dave (Exh.103), who has categorically stated that she was aware about the fact that the suit property was sold orally by the owner of the suit property and the amount was paid by the original defendants since she had helped the original defendants financially to pay the amount. Geetaben Umeshbhai Dave (Exh.103), who has categorically stated that she was aware about the fact that the suit property was sold orally by the owner of the suit property and the amount was paid by the original defendants since she had helped the original defendants financially to pay the amount. 5.1 He would further submit that when there is an oral agreement the original defendants would be entitled for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale and in support of the same, he has relied upon the decision dated 24.10.1990 of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of M/s. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar Alag, ILR (1991) 1 Delhi 303. He has also relied upon the unreported decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aloka Bose vs. Parmatma Devi and Others rendered in Civil Appeal No. 6197 of 2000. He would submit that the trial Court has therefore committed error in not dismissing the suit. 5.2 He would further submit that the suit was also barred by limitation since it is an admitted fact that the original defendants are in possession of the suit property since more than 12 years and therefore, the case of the original plaintiff was hit by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, since the suit has been filed for decree of possession in the year 2008 though the original defendants are in possession since 1985. He, therefore, would submit that the First Appeal be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Pradeep Patel appearing for the original plaintiff has vehemently opposed the present First Appeal and would submit that the trial Court has committed no error in decreeing the suit in favour of the original plaintiff and dismissing the counter claim of the original defendants for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Pradeep Patel appearing for the original plaintiff has vehemently opposed the present First Appeal and would submit that the trial Court has committed no error in decreeing the suit in favour of the original plaintiff and dismissing the counter claim of the original defendants for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale. He would submit that it is an undisputed fact that the original defendants are real brothers of the mother of the original plaintiff and when both the brothers shifted from a small village to city of Vadodara and since the family of the original plaintiff was residing at another place, in order to help the original defendants i.e. real brothers and their families, the mother of the original plaintiff handed over the possession of the suit property to the original defendants and permitted the original defendants to reside in the suit property. He would submit that the suit property was neither given on rent to the original defendants nor any oral agreement was made between the parties. 6.1 He would further submit that the original defendants have miserably failed in establishing their counter claim about oral agreement alleged to have been executed between the parties. Not a single document in support of so called oral agreement was produced before the trial Court and even the cross-examination of the witnesses examined by the original defendants suggest that there is no material to prove the case put-forth by the original defendants. 6.2 By taking me through the deposition of the original plaintiff viz. Vipin @ Bipin Ambalal Patel (Exh.19), who was thoroughly cross-examined by the original defendants, he would submit that it has been categorically stated that to help his maternal uncles, the mother of the original plaintiff had given the possession of the suit property to the original defendants, however the original plaintiff in his deposition has specifically denied about any oral agreement or even about any talks for selling the suit property to the original defendants. 6.3 By taking me through the cross-examination of the original plaintiff, he would submit that though the original plaintiff was asked a specific question about any oral agreement, the original plaintiff had denied the same against which the original defendants have miserably failed in producing any type of document in nature of receipt or rent note or any writing between the parties as to how the possession of the suit property was handed over to the original defendants and therefore, the trial Court has committed no error in passing the decree in favour of the original plaintiff. 6.4 By taking me through the cross-examination of both the original defendants and other witnesses, he would submit that the original defendants could not fully establish that the original defendants were in possession of the suit property. He would submit that even no details are supplied about how much money on installments alleged had been paid at different occasions by producing any evidence, oral or documentary. He would submit that though there was an alleged oral agreement, the original defendants did not care for filing suit for specific performance of the alleged Agreement of Sale. 6.5 He would further submit that as far as adverse possession is concerned, the original defendants have come forward for the first time claiming their adverse possession, however the original owners-original plaintiff was never served with any notice that the original defendants have become the owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession. He would submit that if such notice would have been issued, the original plaintiff might have filed suit earlier and therefore, the limitation would start from such time, as provided under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. He would submit that in the present case when the original defendants refused to hand over the peaceful possession though a legal notice was served in the year 2008 and there was denial in the same year, the suit has been filed and therefore, the suit is filed within prescribed period of limitation as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Pradeep Patel has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deva (Dead) through LRs. vs. Sajjan Kumar (Dead) by LRs. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Pradeep Patel has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deva (Dead) through LRs. vs. Sajjan Kumar (Dead) by LRs. (2003) 7 SCC 481 and would submit that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the period of limitation would start from the date of knowledge that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property has been allegedly encroached. He, therefore, would submit that the First Appeal be dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for respective parties. Perused the judgment impugned in the present First Appeal and Record & Proceedings received from the trial Court. 7.1 It is an undisputed fact that the owner of the suit property was one Revaben W/o Ambubhai Patel (deceased) who happened to be real sister of the original defendants. If the claim put-forth by the original plaintiff and his deposition as well as depositions of original defendants are perused, it is undisputed fact that the suit property was handed over to both the brothers who had come from a small village with their families. Since the original defendants were permitted to stay in the suit property for a considerable long time and ultimately when the original plaintiff needed the suit property, he requested his maternal uncles i.e. the original defendants to hand over the possession of the suit property, however the same was denied and therefore, a legal notice was issued claiming right, title and interest over the suit property. However, in response to the said notice, it was claimed by the original defendants that an oral agreement was entered into between the parties for the sale of the suit property for consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- and has called upon the original plaintiff to execute the sale deed and they are ready to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/-. In such circumstances, the original plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. 7.2 It is the case of the original plaintiff that earlier the property was in the name of his mother who had handed over the possession to her real brothers-original defendants. However, has categorically denied that out of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards sale consideration, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid in cash and an amount of Rs. 7.2 It is the case of the original plaintiff that earlier the property was in the name of his mother who had handed over the possession to her real brothers-original defendants. However, has categorically denied that out of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards sale consideration, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid in cash and an amount of Rs. 1100/- was paid every month to him by the original defendants as per their case. If the cross-examination of the original plaintiff is perused, he has categorically denied that there was any oral agreement between the parties. As far as the original defendants who claimed the right over the suit property pursuant to alleged oral agreement of sale have miserably failed in establishing their case. The original defendants have not produced a single document with regard to contract between the parties which prima facie suggests that there was any oral agreement between the parties about the sale of the suit property. Neither a bank entry which suggests the transaction between the parties nor any type of writing is produced on record by the parties and/or proved before the trial Court. 7.3 It is true that the oral agreement can be proved by various modes of evidence, however in the present case in absence of any type of material, which establishes the existence of an oral agreement, in my opinion the trial Court has committed no error in deciding the issues with regard to the same. The decision rendered in the case of Vinod Kumar Alag (Supra), which has been relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Singhvi appearing for the original defendants is not applicable in the present facts of the case. In the said case there was a receipt issued in favour of the person who intended to purchase the property and terms & conditions were referred to therein. In the present case there is no such writing whatsoever which suggests about the intention of the party and therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the present case. Another decision in the case of Aloka Bose (Supra) which has been relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the original defendants is also not applicable to the present case since there was a written agreement of sale between the parties in that particular case. Another decision in the case of Aloka Bose (Supra) which has been relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the original defendants is also not applicable to the present case since there was a written agreement of sale between the parties in that particular case. 7.4 It is true that the possession of the suit property is with one of the original defendants i.e. Jayantibhai Ambalal Patel-original defendant No. 1 since original defendant No. 2 has vacated the suit property. But in view of the discussion made herein above, the original defendant No. 1 would not be entitled to continue with the possession of the suit property even though he might have claimed adverse possession and raised issue of limitation which is hit by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. In the case of Deva (Dead) through LRs. (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when the owner derived the knowledge, the limitation would start and limitation is of 12 years as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act. In the present case, the original defendants never served any notice informing the original plaintiff that the original defendants have become the owners by adverse possession and the original plaintiff came to know about the intention of the original defendants only when the notice was issued to the original defendants in the year 2008 which was responded by the original defendants in the same year and therefore, when the suit is filed in the year 2008, it cannot be said that the suit was barred by law of limitation. 8. In view of the above discussion, present First Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Registry is hereby directed to send back the Record and Proceedings of the Special Civil Suit No. 390/2008 to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara forthwith. 9. In view of dismissal of main First Appeal, Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1/2019 also stands dismissed.