JUDGMENT S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The plaintiff, whose legal representatives are the first and the second respondents in this Second Appeal, sued the defendants for a declaration of his title and possession in respect of the suit property, which was described as , bearing Survey No. 304/1, and having an area of 4 acres and 12 cents. The second defendant whose legal representatives are the appellants here, contended, that the plaintiff has title and possession only in respect of two acres and two cents in Survey No. 304/1k. At the trial, it was elucidated, that the property in dispute is a plot of land, 78 cents in extent, in Survey Nos. 304/1(1), 304/1J and 304/2B and marked red in Ext. A1, plan prepared by a Commissioner who was deputed in the case. It has also been found by the two courts, that the plaintiff had title to two acres and two cents in 304/1K, as to which there is no dispute, and that he has also acquired title by adverse possession to the above plot of 78 cents. 2. In the Second Appeal against these concurrent findings, two points were urged: firstly, that no issue had been raised at the trial as to the acquisition of title by adverse possession and secondly that the plaintiff had no animus to prescribe against the defendant. I cannot find my way to accept these arguments. In the plaint it was averred, that the plaintiff has long been in possession of the property, and in the replication this was made clear by a specific plea of adverse possession. The issue "whether the plaintiff was entitled to the declaration prayed for" though general, was yet comprehensive, and the parties adduced all available evidence. There was no complaint on this score before the lower appellate court, and I do not think that the present complaint has any force. 3. The findings are, that the plaintiff has been in possession of the plot of 78 cents, as if it belonged to him and formed part of his property. There was no complaint on this score before the lower appellate court, and I do not think that the present complaint has any force. 3. The findings are, that the plaintiff has been in possession of the plot of 78 cents, as if it belonged to him and formed part of his property. Counsel contended that such possession was based on a mistake of fact as to the title to the property, so as to exclude the operation of the rule of adverse possession, and relied on Maqbul Ahmad v. Farhat Ali (66 Indian Cases 461) which was a case of partition between coparceners each of whom by mistake was in possession of certain plots which had been allotted to the other and such possession continued even after the mistake was discovered and in which the principle applied was stated thus :-- "Each held in lieu of what the other held and each was liable to restore the plots which he held as soon as the other party delivered the plots which that party held in lieu of the former." This clearly is not a rule of adverse possession. I am of the opinion, that the plaintiff's possession satisfies the elements of adverse possession, which are summed up thus in Maharaja Srischandra Nandy v. Baijnath Jugal Kishore ( AIR 1935 PC 36 ): "The possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity, and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor. ............. It is sufficient that the possession should be overt and without attempt at concealment, so that the person against whom time is running ought, if he exercises due vigilance, to be aware of what is happening." The findings of the two Courts are not open to challenge and the decree under appeal is hereby confirmed. The fourth defendant who had been declared to be an unnecessary party even by the Trial Court, has been impleaded in this appeal as the 3rd respondent, without any relief being claimed against him. The appellants must pay his costs in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the first and second respondents as well.