As per case facts, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a land sale agreement or, alternatively, for title based on adverse possession, claiming continuous possession since the ... agreement. The defendant denied the agreement and counterclaimed for possession, asserting the plaintiff's possession was permissive. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting specific performance and declaring ownership. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this, dismissing the plaintiff's suit and allowing the defendant's counterclaim, finding the agreement unproven and possession permissive. The plaintiff then appealed to the High Court. The question arose whether the First Appellate Court's findings on permissive possession and its reversal of the trial court's judgment were legally correct, and whether the defendant's counterclaim for possession was barred by limitation, especially considering an alleged deficit Court fee in the first appeal. Finally, the Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the First Appellate Court's conclusion that the agreement was not proven, possession was permissive, and adverse possession was not established. It also held that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding, allowing the appellate court to permit the rectification of Court fee deficiencies. The defendant was permitted to make good the deficit court fee.