Permissive possession cannot mature into adverse title without clear pleading and proof of hostility.

The plaintiff claimed that the original landholders agreed on 26 November 1988 to sell him 3.44 acres for ₹40,000, delivered possession, and agreed to execute a registered sale deed when requested.

He sought declaration of title, permanent injunction and specific performance, and also pleaded acquisition of title by adverse possession.

After the defendants declined to execute the deed despite notice, he filed suit on 29 January 2011.

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the agreement, possession, readiness and willingness, and adverse possession unproved; the first appellate court affirmed.

The plaintiff appealed under Section 100 CPC.

Whether the concurrent findings against the plaintiff on the alleged agreement to sell, possession, and readiness and willingness raised a substantial question of law warranting admission of the second appeal

Whether the plaintiff established title by adverse possession through adequate pleadings and evidence

Whether the plaintiff proved continuous possession of the suit property and entitlement to specific performance

Section 100 CPC requires a substantial question of law for admission of a second appeal; absent such a question, concurrent findings of fact do not warrant appellate interference.

Under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a plaintiff seeking specific performance must plead and prove readiness and willingness: readiness concerns the capacity, including financial capacity, to perform, while willingness is assessed from the plaintiff’s conduct, citing His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji v. Sita Ram Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 526.

A claim of adverse possession requires clear pleadings and proof of open, continuous, peaceful and hostile possession, including when possession became adverse and the true owner’s knowledge of it; long possession alone is insufficient, citing M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1; M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 SC 1254; Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, (2019) 8 SCC 729; and Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 SCC 316.

The alleged agreement dated 26 November 1988 was not proved to the satisfaction of the trial court, and the plaintiff’s conduct—including the absence of efforts to secure performance during the alleged vendors’ lifetimes—did not establish readiness and willingness.

The concurrent findings also rejected proof of continuous possession.

The adverse-possession plea lacked the necessary pleaded and proved facts, including when possession became hostile and whether it was open and known to the true owners; the plaintiff’s assertion of possession following an agreement to sell was also inconsistent with establishing hostile possession on the stated case.

The High Court found no basis to disturb the concurrent factual findings and no substantial question of law.

It dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage, affirmed the judgments and decrees of the courts below, made no order as to costs, and directed that a decree be drawn.