G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 14-4-1975, passed by the Prl. Civil Judge, mysore, in RA No. 2/74, on his file, dismissing the appeal on confirming the judgment and decree, dated 31-10 1973, passed by the Munsiff, Nanjangud, in OS no. 356/1971, on his file dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for possession. Plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration that he is the owner in possession of the 14 guntas of land mentioned in the plaint schedule and for recovery of the same. He averred that land S. No. 280 of badanavalu village in Nanjangud taluk, measuring 4 acres 30 guntas including 'phut Kharab' of 0 2 guntas, originally belonged to one Sidda, son of Kundumana doddasidda and his wife Madi and they were in possession of the same. They sold the southern 3 acres to the plaintiff for Rs. 300 under a registered sale deed dated 5 12-1932, as per Ex. P 5, and put him in possession. The remaining 1 acre 28 guntas on the northern side was mortgaged by the above said two persons, on 2-11-1937, to one Gulam Hyder and was subsequently sold to the defendant. Plaintiff mortgaged 3 acres of land with possession and got the land redeemed subsequently. About a month prior to the suit, the plaintiff noticed that his land appeared smaller in extent. He got it measured and found that 14 guntas of land on the northern side had been encroached by the defendant and was in his possession. He, therefore, demanded of the defendant to vacate the 14 guntas of land marked abcd in the plaint sketch, but the defendant did not. Accordingly, plaintiff iastituted the suit for declaration of his title and for possession of 14 gunlas of disputed land. ( 2 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendant by filing written statement. He contended that he had been in possession of the 14 guntas of land ever since his purchase in the year 1949. Even before that his vendor was in possession of it. He further contended that the plaintiff was never put in possession of 14 guntas of land pursuant to the sale deed. He contended that he had been in possession of the 14 guntas of land ever since his purchase in the year 1949. Even before that his vendor was in possession of it. He further contended that the plaintiff was never put in possession of 14 guntas of land pursuant to the sale deed. Thus he contended that he was openly, adversely and continuously enjoying the 14 guntas of land ever since 1949 and thus he had perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession. The trial Court raised the following issues, as arising from the pleadings, for its consideration. 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he purchased 3 acres of land in S. No. 280 of Badanval village from Sidda and madi and that he was put in possession of the same ? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant had encroached upon 14 guntas of land belonging to him (plaintiff)? 3) Is the plaintiff entitled for possession ? 4) Whether the plaintiff proves the correctness of the rough sketch produced by him ? 5) Whether the defendant proves that he has perfected the title by adverse possession ? 6) To what reliefs, are the parties entitled ? ( 3 ) THE trial Court, appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved that he purchased 3 acres of land under Ex. P-5. Further it held that plaintiff was not put in possession of the disputed 14 guntas of land which remained with his vendor and subsequently with defendant. It further held that defendant was by openly, adversely and continuously enjoying the land for more than 14 years to the knowledge of the plaintiff had perfected his title by adverse possession. In that view the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff went up in appeal before the prl Civil Judge. Mysore, in RA No. 2/ 1974, on his file. The learned Civil Judge, in the course of his judgment, raised the following point as arising for his consideration. Whether the suit is barred by limitation in the sense that defendant perfected his title by adverse possession ? Mysore, in RA No. 2/ 1974, on his file. The learned Civil Judge, in the course of his judgment, raised the following point as arising for his consideration. Whether the suit is barred by limitation in the sense that defendant perfected his title by adverse possession ? re assessing the evidence on record, the learned Civil Judge, found concurrently with the trial Court that the defendant perfected his title by adverse by possession and in that view he 1 eld that the suit was barred by time Thus the learned Civil judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the plaintiff has come up with the above second appeal before this Court the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged before me that the Courts below were not justified in holding that the defendant has perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession. He submitted that there was no animus on the part of the defendant to perfect his title by adverse possession. According to him, both the parties enjoyed the lands under the mistaken notion that the lands were their own. They discovered it only when they were surveyed and as such, though defendant was in possession of the land, it could not be said that he was in adverse possession of the suit land and that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. As against that the respondent-defendant argued supporting the judgment and decree of the trial Court confirmed by the first appellate Court. ( 5 ) THE sole point, therefore, that arises for my consideration in this appeal is : whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession ? it is no doubt true that this Court sitting in second appeal can go into the question of adverse possession, though the Courts below have given a concurrent finding in that behalf. This Court in the case of chandrashekher Jayangouda Patil v. Shidagireppa (1) has observed :"an inference to be drawn in a case where the question for determination is whether a party has perfected his title by adverse possession or not from the facts of the case would be a question of law. It is, therefore, permissible for the High court to investigate into that question in second appeal. It is, therefore, permissible for the High court to investigate into that question in second appeal. A finding on that question by the lower Court cannot be treated as binding on the High Court". As stated above the question that arises for my consideration in this case is whether the defendant has enjoyed the disputed land with the animus to perfect his title by adverse possession The Courts below have held that he did enjoy it so". The Supreme Court of India in P. Lalhsmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy (2) has ruled : "the ordinary classical requirement of adverse possession is that it should be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario". Thus, in order to prove adverse possession, possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor, (27 Ind. App. 136 (14) (PC) Rd ). Having these principles in mind I shall proceed to examine the materials placed on record to find out whether the defendant was enjoying the land with the necessary animus to perfect, his title by adverse possession. ( 6 ) AT the very outlet it may be stated that the Courts below have rightly pointed out that in his very sale deed Ex. D 1 he has got written thus: x X X X ( 7 ) THUS, it is clear that the vendor has made it clear that he not only sold 1 acre 28 guntas which he retained in his possession after selling the test of the area to the plaintiff, but he has futher explained that he is handing over the entire area which was in his possession, meaning thereby obviously that he was in possession of more area and it is in that sense that the defendant has been enjoying openly, continuously and adversely the disputed area having necessary animus to perfect his title by adverse possession. It is the case of the plaintiff himself that he mortgaged the property that he purchased in favour of DW 5. DW 5 has stepped into the box and has said that the area that was mortgaged to him was the extent of land exclusive of the disputed land meaning thereby that the plaintiff never took possession of the disputed area from the beginning. DW 5 has stepped into the box and has said that the area that was mortgaged to him was the extent of land exclusive of the disputed land meaning thereby that the plaintiff never took possession of the disputed area from the beginning. ( 8 ) IT may be noted in this connection that it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant encroached upon the area a few months prior to the institution of the suit. But the evidence on the record, as rightly pointed out by the Courts below concurrently shows that the plaintiff was never put in possession of the disputed area. It was enjoyed adversely to the plaintiff by the vendor and thereafter by the defendant. ( 9 ) MOREOVER, Ex. P-8 makes it clear that when the survey number was poded, S. No. 280/1 contained 2 acres 28 guntas and the rest of the area was in S. No. 280/2. This makes it clear that the plaintiff was enjoying only 2 acres 28 guntas and rest of the area was enjoyed by the defendant as owner. Thus, considering the entire evidence on record it becomes obvious that the defendant was enjoying the disputed area with the necessary adverse animus openly and continuously and for more than the statutory period, to the knowledge of the plaintiff. The law requires that the plaintiff should exercise due diligence and if the plaintiff had exercised due diligence he could have found out even when he was put in possession of the land, pursuant to the sale deed, that he was not put in possession of the disputed area. That being so. both the Courts were justified in coming to the conclusion that the defendant was enjoying the disputed land ever since the date of the sale in his favour with the necessary animus adversely, openly and continuously for more than the statutory period and that thereby he has perfected his title by adverse possession. ( 10 ) IN the result, I am constrained to hold that the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and I dismiss the same. No costs. --- *** --- .