JUDGMENT : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) : 1. The present First Appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 07/10/2017 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge Kunkuri, District Jashpur in Civil Suit No. 08-A/2012. (For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court) 2. Facts of the case are that, father and real uncle of Plaintiff no. 1, namely Late Bhojram and Balram, after considering the request as made by their Sister's husband i.e. Kashiram, in the year 1958 handed over the disputed property to Kashiram by constructing a "Kuchha Makhan" over the disputed property. Kashiram after obtaining the possession of the disputed property, as per their requirement constructed further Kuchha makhan and lived their upto 1965 with his family and then handed over the vacant possession of constructed house and varandah to late Bhojraj and Balram and left the disputed property. In the year 1966, disputed property i.e. house was given to Defendant no. 1, as he made special request for having a stay in the disputed property, till his house got constructed, defendant no.1, being Wife's brother of late Bhojram @ Bhojnath, on account of close relations with Bhojram, got the possession of disputed property without any consideration and in fact without any written agreement. In the year 2009-10, Plaintiffs after considering the requirement of their family members and after knowing that, house of defendant no. 1 got ready, made a demand to defendant no.1 to vacate the disputed property and to shift to his house but defendant no.1, did not pay any heed to it and did not vacate the premises. Plaintiffs after seeing the adamant attitude of defendant no.1, got a demarcation and in which possession over the disputed property was found of defendant no. 1. 3. It is further averred by Plaintiffs that since on the disputed property house was constructed without getting it diverted and therefore on the report of Patwari, Revenue Case no. 4/A-2/77-78 got registered in the court of SDM, Dramjaigarh and in which by virtue of order dated 27/02/1997, father of Plaintiff no. 1, i.e. late Bhojram was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 15/- and also fixed Revenue at the rate of Rs. 4/A-2/77-78 got registered in the court of SDM, Dramjaigarh and in which by virtue of order dated 27/02/1997, father of Plaintiff no. 1, i.e. late Bhojram was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 15/- and also fixed Revenue at the rate of Rs. 14.56/- and directed to deposit the entire fine from 1959-60 to 1977-78, and since defendant no. 1, was the occupant of that house and therefore, matter was registered against defendant no.1, and since defendant no.1 was actually residing in the disputed property since 1966 and therefore, with the consent of Plaintiffs, electricity connection was taken by him in his name and bills with regard to gram Panchayat were also paid by defendant no.1. It is further averred that, neither late Bhojram @ Bhojnath nor Balram had executed any written agreement for sale of disputed property with defendant no.1 and if any document is being produced by defendants then it should be false, fabricated and forged one and would not give any valid title or right in favour of defendant no.1. In January, 2012, defendant no.2, i.e. Ramesh Sharma @ Rammu Sharma started storing bricks and sand near the disputed property and plaintiffs being aggrieved with storage of building material by defendant no.2, asked defendant no.2 to stop all such storage but defendant no.2, apprised them that he is going to purchase part of disputed property from defendant no.1 and in fact had given earnest money for purchasing the property and therefore he is storing the building material near disputed property, after knowing this fact, Plaintiffs made a written report before the Police officials of Patthalgaon on 21/02/2012, but their complaint was not entertained by the police officials, thereafter plaintiffs called a meeting on 14/02/2012 and 18/02/2012 but defendant no.2, made a boycott of that meeting and in fact left the meeting without taking any decision and therefore Plaintiffs left with no alternate except to file this present Suit. 4. It is averred in the plaint, that cause of action accrues first time on 1966, when Plaintiffs handed over the possession to defendant no.1 and secondly in the year 2009-10 when defendant no.1 denied to hand over the vacant possession of disputed property to Plaintiffs and lastly in January 2012, when defendant no. 4. It is averred in the plaint, that cause of action accrues first time on 1966, when Plaintiffs handed over the possession to defendant no.1 and secondly in the year 2009-10 when defendant no.1 denied to hand over the vacant possession of disputed property to Plaintiffs and lastly in January 2012, when defendant no. 1, made storage of building material on the disputed property, Plaintiffs further averred that they have valued the suit properly and affixed appropriate court fee on the plaint. With these averments, Plaintiffs made a request to declare them the owner of disputed property and provided them its possession and defendants be restrained permanently, from LED making any infringement/encroachment in the disputed property. Defendants in their joint written statement vehemently opposed the Plaint and averred that, late Bhojnath since have other legal heirs, but Plaintiffs did not make them as a party and therefore, there is a non-joinder of necessary parties in the Suit. They further averred that, defendant no.1 had purchased Rakba 0.202 (0.50 Acre) out of Khasra no. 75/1 Rakba 0.986 at a consideration of Rs. 1,000/- on 22/03/1965 from Late Bhojnath and Balram and thereafter constructed Kuccha makahan, Kotha, Aangan, Khaliyan in it and since then living peacefully in the disputed property. 5. Defendant no. 1 further took a plea of adverse possession over the disputed property, they denied that they have made any storage of building material near the disputed property they further averred that suit is filed without any cause of action and barred by law, further Plaintiffs have not valued the suit properly and did not affix proper court fees and further the suit of the Plaintiffs comes within the preview of section 250 of C.G.L.R Code and therefore by virtue of Provisions of Section 257 of C.G.L.R Code, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit, with all these abovementioned averments, defendants requested to dismiss the Suit of the Plaintiff Cost. 6. On the basis of Pleadings and documents filed by the parties to this Suit, the court framed 9 issues, in which issue no. 6. On the basis of Pleadings and documents filed by the parties to this Suit, the court framed 9 issues, in which issue no. 6,7 and 8 were decided by this court by its separate order dated 29/08/2017, by treating them as preliminary issues, and made a findings that Suit of the Plaintiffs do not come in the array of Provisions as contemplated under section 257 of C.G.L.R. and, that there is no non-Joinder of necessary parties, but as far as Issue no. 8 is concern, this Court after considering the fact that the disputed property being converted into diverted land and as Plaintiffs also claimed a relief of possession of the disputed property and therefore, they required to pay the Court fees as per the market value of the disputed property, and then made a direction to the Plaintiffs to pay the deficient fees and which was duly paid by the Plaintiffs during the pendency of this Suit. 7. Counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment and decree dated 07/10/2017 is perverse, illegal and erroneous. The trial Court overlooked the fact that the suit is hopelessly time barred as according to the plaintiffs cause of action arose for the first time in the year 1966 whereas they filed the suit in the year 2012. He submits that while deciding issue No. 1 regarding ownership of the disputed property, the learned trial Court has further completely overlooked that the plaintiffs haven not produced any documentary evidence to show that it is exclusive property of the plaintiffs. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and submitted that the Defendants have failed to produce any cogent evidence to support their claim over the disputed property, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records and judgment with utmost circumspection. 10. The first contention of appellant/defendants is regarding limitation. According to the defendants, the cause of action arise in the year 1966 when the disputed property was given to the defendants, whereas the suit was filed in the year 2012, therefore, it is time barred. 11. 10. The first contention of appellant/defendants is regarding limitation. According to the defendants, the cause of action arise in the year 1966 when the disputed property was given to the defendants, whereas the suit was filed in the year 2012, therefore, it is time barred. 11. On perusal of plaint, it was disclosed that the Kashiram was brother-in-law of the Bhojnath, therefore, the said property was given by Late Bhojnath to Kashiram under the bonafide belief that the same was returned when plaintiffs or his descendants will need it. The said Kashiram stayed on the said property upto 1958 and after that possession of disputed property along with the constructed house was handed over to defendant No. 1 till his house got constructed. It is a common practice in the rural areas that relatives usually gives there property for living to other close relative for time being, but the said will not give rise to right over the said property. It is permissive possession of the defendants over the suit property. 12. According to this Court, the said cause of action arise in the year 2012, when defendant No. 2 started to store bricks, sand and other material over the dispute property for some construction. It is evident from witnesses namely Khursoram (PW1) who in his deposition has stated that defendant no.1 despite constructing his own house did not vacate the disputed land on their request. In para no. 17 of his deposition, this witness further deposed that on 21/02/2012 a complaint was made to P.S. Patthalgaon but the same was not found to be entertainable by Police Officials and they suggested them to sorted out the matter by having a conversation with defendant no.1, in this regard Plaintiffs has also filed EX P/8, which is report/suggestion of Police Officials, after getting this suggestion from Police, meetings dated. 14/03/2012 and 18/03/2012 of Agrihya Cast were convened by Plaintiffs but no decision could have been taken place as defendant no.1, left that meeting. In this regard on behalf of defendants suggestion was given to Plaintiff witness Ramlal (PW-2) in which he accepted this suggestion that controversy was erupted in that meeting and therefore he did demarcation of the Property. In this regard if deposition of defendant no.1 is being seen, then in para ??. In this regard on behalf of defendants suggestion was given to Plaintiff witness Ramlal (PW-2) in which he accepted this suggestion that controversy was erupted in that meeting and therefore he did demarcation of the Property. In this regard if deposition of defendant no.1 is being seen, then in para ??. 14 of his cross-examination defendant Raghuwar admitted the organization of a meeting for solving the problem of disputed property. He further admitted that in that meeting no decision was taken place, in fact this witness admitted that they left that meeting and because of this no decision was arrived between them. He further admitted that, thereafter Plaintiffs have filed this Civil Suit. Therefore, the cause of action arises in the year 2012 when the refusal to vacate the dispute property was made by the defendants. 13. The next contention of counsel for the appellants/defendants that the plaintiffs has failed to prove the possession over the disputed property. The said contention of the counsel is wrong for the reasons because the evidence led by the plaintiffs put forward totally a different story which suggest the plaintiffs has given plenty of documents to support their plaint. Once such document is revenue document i.e. certified copy Form B-1 of the year 2010-11 proved by Kurso Ram (PW1), which shows that plaintiffs names were recorded in the revenue record. Though it is a settled law that revenue records does not give any rise to any title over the property but certainly it has presumptive value which can only be rebutted by leading a cogent evidence, which was not done by the defendants. 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Another Vs. S. Narasimhulu Naidu (Dead) Through Lrs. and Others {2021 SCC OnLine SC 644} has held thus in para 44:- 44. Apart from the fact that the transfer of title in favour of the Union is complete when the possession was delivered, but even thereafter, the military land register and general land register produced by the appellants show the possession of the appellants over such land. The military land register and general land register are public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act) containing the records of the acts of the sovereign authority i.e., the Union as well as official body. The military land register and general land register are public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act) containing the records of the acts of the sovereign authority i.e., the Union as well as official body. Still further, Section 114 of the Evidence Act grants presumption of correctness being an official act having been regularly performed. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that such records were not maintained properly, the official record containing entries of ownership and possession would carry the presumption of correctness. In view of the transfer of land on 10.10.1956 followed by delivery of possession on 19.3.1958 and continuous assertion of possession thereof, it leads to the unequivocal finding that appellants are owners and in possession of the suit land. 15. It is also pertinent to mention once the cogent evidence was put forward by the plaintiffs to establish his claim the onus has shifted to the defendants to lead the cogent evidence in his favour, but the same was not done by the defendants. So the reverse presumption will be drawn against the persons who has not produce any cogent evidence. 16. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar D. Amin v Air France, (2016) 2 SCC 566 held thus at para 7 : 7. Again, in support of the said proposition, the Commissioner for Taking Accounts rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohd. Haji Latif, wherein this Court held that under Sections 114(g) and 103 of the Evidence Act, 1872, a party in possession of best evidence which throws light on the issue in controversy withholding it, the Court ought to draw an adverse inference against it notwithstanding that onus of proof does not lie on him and the party cannot rely on abstract doctrine of onus of proof or on the fact that he was not called upon to produce it. 17. It seems that the entire case of the defendants/appellants is based on the plea of adverse possession, but it is a settled law that the plea of adverse possession cannot be claimed on the basis permissive possession by the owner. 18. In the matter of "L. N. Aswathama & Anr Vs. P. Prakash", CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17. It seems that the entire case of the defendants/appellants is based on the plea of adverse possession, but it is a settled law that the plea of adverse possession cannot be claimed on the basis permissive possession by the owner. 18. In the matter of "L. N. Aswathama & Anr Vs. P. Prakash", CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4125 OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8405 of 2007, decided on 21 April, 2009, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para no.17 as:- 17. The legal position is no doubt well settled. To establish a claim of title by prescription, that is adverse possession for 12 years or more, the possession of the claimant must be physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding twelve years. It is also well settled that long and continuous possession by itself would not constitute adverse possession if it was either permissive possession or possession without animus possidendi. The pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. Unless the person possessing the property has the requisite animus to possess the property hostile to the title of the true owner, the period for prescription will not commence. (Vide: Periasami vs. P. Periathambi- 1995 (6) SCC 523 , Md. Mohammad Ali (dead) by Lrs. v. Jagdish Kalita- 2004 (1) SCC 271 and P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma- 2007 (6) SCC 59 ). 19. On perusal of record, it is well established that the possession of defendants over the suit property is permissive possession, therefore, the pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. 20. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid legal propositions, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal, therefore, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 21. No order as to cost. 22. Decree be drawn accordingly.