JUDGMENT : S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J. 1. Defendant nos.1(a) & 1(b) have preferred this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2007 passed in O.S.No.138/1999 by the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Chitradurga. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. O.S.No.138/1999 is filed by respondent nos.1 to 8 herein with a prayer for passing a decree for recovery of possession of suit schedule property. 4. The appellants herein had filed written statement opposing the suit claim. 5. The Trial Court based on the rival pleadings, had framed the following issues in O.S.No.138/1999. "1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants came in possession of suit property on 8-6-98 after the dismissal of R.S.A.No.313/92? 2. Whether defendants prove that deceased Sanna Thammappa was in possession of suit property along with Basavva since 1935, to the knowledge of its owner vendor Thimmanna and continued to be in possession after the death of Basavva in1950, openly, uninterruptedly, continuously to the knowledge of Channabasappa, Basappa and perfected his title to suit property by adverse possession? 3. Whether defendants prove that the suit is barred by time? 4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for possession of suit property from defendants? 5. What decree or order?" 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, three witnesses were examined as PWs-1 to 3 and ten documents were got marked as Exs.P-1 to P-10. The defendants had examined two witnesses in support of their case as DWs-1 & 2 and 33 documents were got marked as Exs.D-1 to D-33. 7. After hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, the Trial Court vide the impugned judgment and decree has decreed the suit and directed the defendants to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated05.01.2007, defendant nos.1(a) & 1(b), are before this Court. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants having reiterated the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, submits that Ex.D-6 is the order of the Assistant Commissioner passed under Section 145 Cr.PC, in which, it is observed that defendants in the present case are in possession of the suit schedule property. He submits that O.S.No.309/1978 was earlier filed seeking the relief of declaration and injunction. He submits that O.S.No.309/1978 was earlier filed seeking the relief of declaration and injunction. In the said suit also, there is a finding that defendants in the present case are in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants have perfected their title to the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. He submits that the suit is hopelessly barred by limaition. He has placed reliance on Article 65 of the Limitation Act, and submits that the suit is not filed within a period of 12 years from the date defendants have come in possession of the suit schedule property. He submits that merely for the reason that proceedings in O.S.No.309/1978 was pending, the limitation to file a suit for recovery does not get saved. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of RAJENDAR SINGH VS SANTA SINGH - LAWS(SC)-1973-8- 38 and DES RAJ VS. BHAGAT RAM - LAWS(SC)-2007-2- 76. 9. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents who are the plaintiffs in the present suit, have argued in support of the impugned judgment and decree. They submit that plaintiffs title has been declared in O.S.No.309/1978. The present suit is only for the relief of possession based on title. The claim of adverse possession made by the defendants in the present suit has been answered in the negative and therefore, limitation as provided under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, is not applicable to the case on hand. In support of their arguments, they have placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MALLAVVA & ANR. VS KALSAMMANAVARA KALAMMA (SINCE DEAD) BY LEGAL HEIRS & ORS. - 2024 INSC 1021. 10. The points that arise for consideration in this regular first appeal are: (1) Whether the appellants/defendants have proved that they have perfected their title over the suit schedule property by adverse possession? (2) Whether the suit was barred by limitation? 11. The appellants herein had earlier filed suit in OS No.309/1978 in which the respondents herein were defendants. In the said suit, the appellants herein had claimed the relief of declaration of their title over the suit schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. (2) Whether the suit was barred by limitation? 11. The appellants herein had earlier filed suit in OS No.309/1978 in which the respondents herein were defendants. In the said suit, the appellants herein had claimed the relief of declaration of their title over the suit schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. It was the case of the appellants herein that the suit schedule property was their ancestral property, which was in their possession and enjoyment. The said claim was answered in the negative in OS No.309/1978 and it was held that plaintiff in the said suit, namely, Sannathamappa had failed to prove that he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property. Against the judgment and decree passed in OS No.307/1978, Sannathamappa had filed RA No.74/1985 and in the said appeal, the findings recorded in OS No.309/1978 regarding the title of the property was confirmed and it was held that Sannathamappa was in possession of the suit schedule property and consequently, a decree of permanent injunction was granted. The said judgment and decree was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondents herein, who were defendants in OS No.309/1978 before this Court in RSA No.313/1992 and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 12. The appellants herein, who had claimed title over the suit schedule property in OS No.309/1978 have now taken a defence of adverse possession in the present suit which is filed by the respondents herein for recovery of possession based on their title. However, perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the appellants herein in the present suit as well as the deposition of the witnesses on behalf of the defendants would clearly go to show that they have not admitted the title of the plaintiffs in the present suit. In OS No.309/1978, the title of the plaintiffs in the present suit in respect of the suit schedule property is held to be proved and based on the finding recorded in the said suit regarding title, the present suit is filed for recovery of the possession of the suit schedule property which was held to be in possession of the defendants in OS No.309/1978. Unless a party admits the title of the other side over the property in question, he cannot set-up a plea of adverse possession. Unless a party admits the title of the other side over the property in question, he cannot set-up a plea of adverse possession. In the present case, DW1 has categorically stated that property has come to his possession through Basavva and after her death, they are in possession of the property. 13. A reading of the averments in the written statement as well as the deposition of DW1 makes it very clear that they have raised a contention that they are in possession of the property as owners. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in holding that defendants have failed to prove that they had perfected title to the suit schedule property by adverse possession. 14. Issue No.3 framed in the present suit is based on the contention raised by the defendants that the suit is barred by limitation. It is not in dispute that the earlier suit filed by defendants in OS No.309/1978 was to declare the title in respect of the suit schedule property and also to grant a consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, it was held that appellants herein, who are plaintiffs in the said suit were in possession of the suit schedule property, but the defendants in the said suit, who are respondents herein are the title holders of suit schedule property. Based on the finding recorded in OS No.309/1978 regarding their title, respondents herein have filed the present suit for recovery of possession. 15. Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides for limitation to file suit for 'for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title'. Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1965, reads as follows:- 65. Description of suit Period limitation For possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title. Explanation.-For the purposes of this article- (a) where the suit is by a remainderman, a reversioner (other than a landlord) or a devisee, the possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only when the estate of the remainderman, reversioner or devisee, as the case may be, falls into possession; debtor was out of possession at the date of the sale, the purchaser shall be deemed to be a representative of the judgment-debtor who was out of possession. (b) where the suit is by a Hindu or Muslim entitled to the possession of immovable property on the death of a Hindu or Muslim female, the possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only when the female dies; (c)where the suit is by a purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree when the judgment- Twelve years Time from which period begins to run When the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. 16. From a reading of the aforesaid, it is apparent that period of 12 years prescribed for filing the suit for recovery of possession of immovable property would get attracted only in the event the defendant proves that his possession is adverse to the interest of the party filing the suit. In the present case, claim made by the appellants regarding adverse possession has been already answered in the negative and therefore, the period of limitation provided under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, will not be applicable to the present case. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of INDIRA VS. ARUMUGAM AND ANOTHER - (1998) 1 SCC 614 has held that in a suit based on title for possession, once the title is established, unless the defendant proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in MALLAVVA'S case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph Nos.17 and 18, has observed as follows:- "17. Article 65 of the Limitation Act reads as follows: "Description of Period of  suit Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run For possession Twelve  immovable property or any interest therein based on title Twelve years When the  possession of  the defendant becomes  adverse to the plaintiff" From a plain reading of the said Article, it is made clear that a suit filed for recovery of possession based on title should be filed within a period of 12 years when possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff concerned. 18. Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is corresponding to Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, wherein it is stated that the plaintiff who based his case on title has to prove not only title, but also possession within 12 years of the date of suit. 18. Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is corresponding to Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, wherein it is stated that the plaintiff who based his case on title has to prove not only title, but also possession within 12 years of the date of suit. The said Article has undergone a metamorphic change in view of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The vital distinction between Articles 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is that as per Article 142 of 1908 Act, the plaintiff has to prove not only title, but also possession within 12 years of the date of suit, whereas, as per Article 65 of 1963 Act, a suit for possession based on title has to be filed within 12 years when possession becomes adverse to the concerned plaintiff." 19. The judgments in the cases of RAJENDAR SINGH and DES RAJ (supra) on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellants do not arise out of a suit filed for recovery of possession based on title. The said judgments have been rendered having regard to the facts and circumstances of the said case and therefore, they cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. It is trite that judgments can be relied on as precedents only if they are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the present suit filed by the respondents herein was not barred by time. The Trial Court was therefore, justified in decreeing the suit. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree, which calls for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed.