transfer enquiry, Therefore, the documents produced on side of defendant shows that they are not having valid right and title over the property. Accordingly, Patta was cancelled by the revenue authority in the year of 1996 itself. Therefore, the Kist receipts relied on by the defendant might have obtained for cultivating the land under the original owner viz., George, but not as a true owner of the land. Hence, the documents relied on by the plaintiff showing that he had possessed and enjoyed the property were supported by documents, but on the other hand, the vendor George transferred the property in the year of 1995, at that time, the condition imposed in the assignment also lapsed. Thereafter, from the year of 1995 onwards, he possessed and enjoyed the property and Patta also stands in his name, which was rightly appreciated by the first appellate judge, which needs no interference. One of the defence raised by the defendant that she had also perfected title over the property based on adverse possession, but the entire defence made by the defendant based on Ex.B1 sale agreement and she claimed right and title based on the said sale agreement. Therefore, they are not entitled to claim adverse possession, as inconsistent pleas also not permissible. To that effect, the 13/16
