JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiffs and the defendants both were tenants under the original owner of the property and both of them purchased the property through respective legal heirs and successors of original owner although there was no partition amongst the legal heirs of the original owner. He submits that a portion of the property purchased by the plaintiffs was under illegal possession of the defendants and consequently, a suit was filed. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that so far as the prayer for partition is concerned, the same was not the appropriate relief, but at the same time, the plaintiffs had also prayed for declaration of title over half partition of the suit property purchased through registered sale-deed dated 25.01.1974. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants and one of the issues which was framed by the learned trial Court was issue no. V i.e., is the suit barred by law of limitation and adverse possession and ouster? The learned counsel has submitted that while deciding issue no. V, the learned trial Court took up the matter along with issue no. VII and held that there was no unity of title and unity of possession between the plaintiffs and defendants as they were never joint and co-owners. At the same time, the learned trial Court also held that the parties to the suit never came in possession of specific portion purchased by them and they continued their possession held by them as tenant of their vendors. 5. The learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Court disbelieved the loss of possession by the plaintiffs as on 12.03.1995 and as such, it was held by the learned trial Court that the limitation for recovery of possession of the purchased portion of the property by the plaintiffs would have started running from the date of purchase of southern half portion by them on 25.01.1974 and consequently, the suit was held to be barred by limitation. The learned counsel has submitted that learned trial Court, while deciding the aforesaid issue which was essentially relating to adverse possession, has not considered as to whether the basic ingredients of adverse possession was satisfied and proved by the defendants. 6. The learned 1 st appellate Court was of the view that no petition seeking eviction under Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act was filed and therefore, there was no question of recovery of possession by the plaintiffs over schedule-B property and that the plaintiffs were not in possession over it. 7. The learned counsel submits that the findings recorded by both the learned courts are perverse and it was never the case of the defendants that they were in possession of the suit property in the capacity of tenant. 8. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this appeal is admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the learned Courts have decided the point of adverse possession, limitation and ouster in accordance with law? (ii) Whether the learned 1 st appellate Court was justified in dismissing the appeal by observing that the plaintiffs never filed any eviction suit under Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)Control Act? 9. Let notice be issued to the respondents under ordinary process for which requisites etc. be filed by the appellants within a period of one week from today. 10. The records have already been received from the learned Court concerned. 11. Post this case on 16 th April 2025 under the heading “For Final Disposal”.