Short Note : 1. Most of the facts are j not disputed in the present case nor is the genealogy on the basis of which plaintiff Jiyalal claims to be owner of the land. It is therefore, not necessary to slate all those facts. The only relevant facts are these. As a result of the partition made long before the suit, the suit lard having an area of 13.91 acres out of Khasra No. 32 fell to the share of Daulatiya through whom the plaintiff claims title. The entire Khasra No. 32 had an area of 20.86 acres and the remaining land therein fell to the share of the predecessor-in-title of defendants 2, 3 and 4 who are all sons of Samaliya, a brother of Daultiya From Daulatiya the suit land came to his son Bihari who died in the year in 1949 and then to Bihari’s daughter Chhutiya who died in 1951, then to Hiro daughter of Daulatiya and from her to plaintiff Jiyalal who is her son. The defendant No. 1 Shobbaram is a grandson of Bhawani another brother of Daulatiya and he claims to be in adverse possession of the suit land since the year 1940, i. e. from the life time of Bihari who died in 1949 The plaintiff, however. contends that it was only in the year 1961 that he was forcibly dispossessed from the suit land on account of which the suit was filed in the year 1965 2. Held: As earlier stated, the claim of the defendant No.1 of adverse possession over the suit land has been rejected by both the Courts below. Shri A.R. Choube, learned counsel for the appellant, assails that finding. In my opinion there is no ground to interfere with the same. There is no dispute that mutation in respect of the suit land was done from time to time in favour of Bihari who died in 1949, Chhutiya who died in 1951 and thereafter in favour of Hiro and then the plaintiff Jiyalal. This mutation was done without any objection being raised by the defendents. Even assuming that the defendant No.1 was in actual possession of the suit as claimed by him. the requisite animus to constitute adverse possession was required to be further proved by him to succeed in his plea of adverse possession. This mutation was done without any objection being raised by the defendents. Even assuming that the defendant No.1 was in actual possession of the suit as claimed by him. the requisite animus to constitute adverse possession was required to be further proved by him to succeed in his plea of adverse possession. This conduct of the defendant No.1 in not objecting to the mutation even after the death of Chhutiya in 1951 is a strong circumstance to negative the plea of adverse possession besides the other facts and circumstances relied on by the Court below and it is not necessary to reiterate the same. In my opinion on merits also there is no infirmity in this finding recorded by the first appellate Court. This being the only point for decision in this appeal, this appeal must fail. Appeal dismissed.