Adverse possession and limitation: open, continuous possession can mature into title when the true owner fails to sue in time.

Open, continuous possession to the knowledge of the true owners, supported by consistent revenue entries, was treated as adverse once the occupants asserted their own right and excluded the respondents from possession and usufruct. Even if the original entry was permissive, it could mature into adverse possession after the change in character of possession. As the respondents did not enforce their rights within 12 years from the point when possession became adverse, the plea of limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was satisfied and title by prescription was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants perfected title to the suit land by prescription through adverse possession, thereby barring the respondents' suit under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The possession of the appellants was found to be open, continuous, and to the knowledge of the respondents, with revenue entries consistently showing them as owners. The initial permissive possession, even if accepted, did not prevent possession from becoming adverse after the daughters' marriage. Once the appellants held the property in assertion of their own right and excluded the respondents from possession and usufruct for more than the statutory period, the burden on them to prove adverse possession stood satisfied. The respondents' failure to assert their rights within 12 years from the date when possession became adverse confirmed the plea of limitation.

Conclusion: The appellants had perfected title by prescription, and the suit was barred by limitation.

---