JUDGMENT : 1. Eshwara Bhat had filed a suit seeking for declaration that he had perfected the title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. He also sought for decree of injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession. 2. Eshwara Bhat – plaintiff claimed that Sesu Poojary, father of Defendants 1 to 7 had executed an agreement of sale and had delivered the suit property for a consideration of Rs.2000/and while executing the said agreement, he also handed over the original grant order and had authorized the plaintiff to remove green manure and firewood from the land. It was stated that on 21.1.1975 the said Sesu Poojary had passed away and thereafter, another agreement 28.1.1975 confirming the earlier agreement of sale and borrowed a sum of Rs.1900/in consideration of the said agreement and it was stated that then the amount was spent for expenses of medical treatment of late Sesu Poojary and also for funeral expenses and the same was set out in the agreement itself. 3. Eshwar Bhat basically contended that the agreement contained a clause that if agreement was not executed on or before 31.3.1976, he had a right to enter upon the property as a purchaser and enjoy possession as an absolute owner. 4. He further contended that despite the said clause, no sale deed was executed in his favour and therefore, he took possession of the property without any objection or obstruction from the defendants and started enjoying the land as purchaser from 1.4.1976. He stated that his name was entered in the RTC and it was clear that he was in absolute possession of the property as purchaser in possession. He claimed that he had perfected the right over the suit property under the concept of adverse possession since he had been enjoying the land with an animus to acquire the title hostile to the interest of the defendants over statutory period. He further stated that he is protected under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, he contended that he was entitled for the said decree. 5. The suit was resisted by the defendants inasmuch as the second defendant filed written statement which was adopted by Defendant No. D1 and 4(i) to 4(iv). He further stated that he is protected under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, he contended that he was entitled for the said decree. 5. The suit was resisted by the defendants inasmuch as the second defendant filed written statement which was adopted by Defendant No. D1 and 4(i) to 4(iv). The defence put forth was of total denial and stated that the schedule property originally belonged to the father of the defendants – Seshu Poojary . They contended that the plaintiff was never in possession of the property nor he had any manner of title to be in possession and he was not entitled to take shelter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. The Trial court on consideration of the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had proved that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he had agreed to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.2,000/under the Agreement of Sale dated 16.9.74 and that the defendants had executed another agreement dated 28.1.1975 confirming the said agreement . The trial court thereafter proceeded to hold that the plaintiff had perfected his title by adverse possession and proceeded to grant decree with other reliefs. 7. It may be pertinent to state here that the defendants had raised a counter claim seeking for injunction against the plaintiff contending that they were in possession of the land. The Trial Court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the counter claim. 8. As a result of this, two appeals were filed one by the defendants challenging the decree declaring that Eshwara Bhat has perfected has perfected his title by way of averse possession and another one by the defendants against the denial of counter claim. 9. The Appellate Court on reappreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not established that he was in possession from 1974 and that the revenue records produced only indicated that the name of the plaintiff had been entered from 1985 and there was nothing to establish that the plaintiff was in possession from the year 1976 and the claim of the plaintiff could not be entertained. The Appellate Court accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court by the same order, allowed the counter claim and granted a decree of injunction in favour of the defendants. 10. It is this judgment and decree is impugned in this second appeal. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was clear proof of two agreements of sale having been entered into by Seshu Poojary and also by the defendants in favour of Eshwara Bhat , in which it had been agreed that the suit property was sold to Eshwar Bhat. He had also submitted that as per the stipulation in the said agreement, since the sale deeds had not been executed on or before 31.3.1976, Eshwar Bhat had entered into possession and even if the decree of adverse possession could not have been granted, the decree of injunction could not be refused. He also contends that the revenue records coupled with proceedings of the Land Tribunal also indicated that Eshwara Bhat was in possession and thus at any rate the decree of injunction could not be refused. 12. At the out set, it is to be stated here that reading of the plaint, it is seen that the plaintiff basically contended that he was in possession of the land as a purchaser. If plaintiff claims that he was in possession of the land as purchaser, then the question of adverse possession would never arise. The averment in the suit was itself misconceived. The plaintiff contended that he was in possession of the land as a purchaser and his possession was protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. 13. The argument of the learned counsel that the plaintiff entered into possession after 31.3.1976 because the sale deed was not executed and from that date, he was in possession, cannot be accepted. Admittedly, during the period from 1976 to 1985, there was no record of any kind to indicate that Eshwara Bhat had entered into possession. In my view even according to the plaint, Eshwara Bhat was only an alleged agreement holder in alleged possession and this would not entitle him to continue in possession of the land. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the appellate Court. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed.