delivery of such a possession is not possible since the sale deeds in favour of the defendants are prior to the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the vendor has delivered the possession of the property. When the possession of the property six years prior to the filing of the suit is admitted, a presumption can also be drawn that the possession of the defendants is only under the sale deeds Exs.B.1, 14 and 17, dated 16.03.1974 and they continued to be in possession. The fact of possession can also be taken into consideration in view of the fact that certain structures were raised, which are of permanent nature in the schedule properties. The lower Court has accepted the title by adverse possession and also taken into consideration the evidence of DWs. 1 to 4 about the possession. Further, PW.1 himself admits that by the date of his purchase under Ex.A.1 sale deed, the defendants have erected some huts to some extent and he does not know since how long the huts were there. The suit was filed on 16.06.1986, which is evidently beyond the period of twelve years from the date of Ex.A.1, which is dated 15.06.1974. Even otherwise it is the claim of the 1st defendant that the sale transaction has preceded by an agreement of sale in 1972. Therefore, it is quite clear that the plaintiff or his vendor was not in possession of the property and the defendants were in possession for a long time adversely to the knowledge of the plaintiff and his vendor and the finding of the lower Court that the defendants have perfected title by adverse possession cannot be said to be incorrect. Therefore, I find no merits in the appeal. Accordingly points are answered.
