16. So far as the claim of adverse possession to item No.1, where the saw mill is situated, is concerned, evidently Venkatareddi died in the year, 1981; the suit was filed in the year 1984. Therefore, by the date of filing of the suit, there cannot be any theory of adverse possession. Even according to the case of the 4th defendant, if the title is asserted under Ex.B.15, it is only to an extent of 12 cents and not to the entire extent of 24 cents. But, merely because, the saw mill is situated in the land belonging to Venkatareddi, it cannot be treated that the rights were created by adverse possession to Defendant No.4. In fact, on this aspect, the evidence on both sides is not very clear as to on what understanding the saw mill was agreed to be continued in the land owned by Venkatareddi. But a ready inference cannot be drawn that Venkatareddi has lost his right in the property. The possession, if at all to be considered, is only a permissive possession and it cannot be treated as adverse possession to the legal heirs of Venkatareddi. If the possession is to be treated as permissive, then the question as to when defendant No.4 was added as a party and as to whether the title was perfected by adverse possession beyond a period of 12 years from the date of suit has no relevancy. But, the fact remains when the defendant No.4 was setting up title in himself to the 12 cents of land, he cannot raise a plea of
