THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.350 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The respondents filed O.S.No.35 of 2001 in the Court of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala against the appellants for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. It was pleaded that the appellants themselves sold the suit schedule property under a sale deed, dated 22.04.1986, in favour of the respondents and despite the same, they are continuing in possession. It was also pleaded that the appellants themselves filed O.S.No.48 of 1990 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala for the relief of cancellation of the sale deed, dated 22.04.1986, and that the same was dismissed on 16.09.1992. The appellants did not dispute the execution of the sale deed marked as Ex.A1. It was, however, pleaded that the appellants have perfected their title by adverse possession. The trial Court dismissed O.S.No.35 of 2001, through its judgment, dated 03.04.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed A.S.No.17 of 2007 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal, through its judgment, dated 05.03.2009. Hence, this second appeal. Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the lower appellate Court committed an error in computing the period of adverse possession in favour of the appellants with effect from the date of dismissal of O.S.No.48 of 1990 or the date of filing of that suit. According to the learned counsel, the possession of the appellants is adverse to the respondents ever since the date of sale deed itself. Sri Addanki Rama Chandra Murthy, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the appellants did not dispute the title of the respondents and at the most, the possession was permissive till they filed O.S.No.48 of 1990. He contends that O.S.No.35 of 2001 was filed before expiry of 12 years from the date on which the appellants treated their possession as adverse to the interests of the respondents. The only question that figured prominently before the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court was the one of adverse possession. The appellants did not dispute the factum of their execution of sale deed in favour of the respondents. Therefore, title remains beyond any pale of doubt. The trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint schedule property? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession over the plaint schedule property from defendants? The suit was dismissed on the ground that the appellants have perfected their title by adverse possession. A.S.No.17 of 2007 filed by the respondents was allowed. The appellants were the original owners of the suit schedule property. For their necessity, they sold the same through sale deed, dated 22.04.1986, Ex.A1. Thereby, the title to the property stood transferred in favour of the respondents. Possession of the respondents over it, virtually becomes permissive. The appellants manifested their intention to act contrary to the interests of the respondents only when they filed O.S.No.48 of 1990 for the relief of cancellation of sale deed, dated 22.04.1986. This was four years, after the sale deed was executed. Their intention to remain in possession adverse to the interests of the respondents can be computed only from that date. The trial Court was in error in treating the possession of the appellants adverse to the interests of the respondents from the date of Ex.A1 itself. If the respondents did not insist on delivery of possession, it was on account of their gesture of goodwill towards the appellants. The lower appellate Court corrected the glaring error committed by the trial Court and decreed the suit. This Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:17.08.2009 kdl