M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a 1st defendant's second appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court. ( 2 ) IN the course of this Judgment, the parties will be referred to by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed O. S. No. 53/1981 in the Court of the Munsiff, Basavakalyan inter alia seeking relief for declaration of his title to the suit schedule property and possession of the same. ( 4 ) WHEN 9 acres and 16 guntas of land along with the other lands were purchased from one Smt. Gangabai wife of Gurulingappa Mantal, the plaintiff was a minor and the same was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 18-2-1959 by obtaining permission for alienation and since then he was in possession. Through the guardian, he was enjoying the suit land. The land comprised in S. No. 11 was divided into three hissas or parts. The part No. 4 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas was situated at Tipranth village in Basavakalyan taluk. He further pleaded that defendants 1 and 2 are full brothers without having a right, title or interest, they submitted an application on 25-5-1976 in respect of the suit land to the Land Reforms tribunal claiming to be tenants since about 50 years. Even without contest, the Tribunal rejected that claim. The plaintiff's name was shown in the cultivators column in the revenue registers yet the defendants had managed to get their names included and on coming to know of such wrong entries being made, the defendants filed application before the Land Tribunal. The defendants also dispossessed the plaintiff conniving with the revenue officials. It was, in that circumstance, that he asked for his title to be declared as well as sought possession of the land of which he was dispossessed. ( 5 ) DEFENDANT-1 filed a written statement denying all plaint averments. He stated that the plaintiff had purchased the land in S. No. 11/4 from one Gangabai along with other lands. He disputed the sale deed. He also disputed the possession of the plaintiff at any time of the suit land. He further claimed that he had perfected his title to the suit land by adverse possession. He was never in possession of the land as a tenant but only as owner. He disputed the sale deed. He also disputed the possession of the plaintiff at any time of the suit land. He further claimed that he had perfected his title to the suit land by adverse possession. He was never in possession of the land as a tenant but only as owner. On such pleadings, the following two issues were framed by the trial Court. They were, (I) Whether the 1st defendant proves that he perfected the title over the suit property by adverse possession against the vendor of the plaintiff or against the plaintiff? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the suit property? ( 6 ) ON issue No. 1 it found in the negative against the defendant and found in favour of the plaintiff on issue No. 2. Therefore, it decreed the suit. ( 7 ) THE main reasons which impelled the trial Court to come to such conclusion was the inconsistent stand taken by the defendant before the Land tribunal, when he gave oral evidence there and in the oral evidence he had given before the trial Court in support of his pleadings in the trial Court. The trial Court came to the conclusion that he should not be permitted to plead in one forum to be a tenant of the suit schedule land and in another forum that he was the owner of the land in possession. ( 8 ) THE trial Court also held that Ex. P7, the original sale dead was duly proved as having been executed by Dangabai which established the title of the plaintiff. In that circumstance, it came to decree the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, in the appeal preferred in RA. No. 30/ 1986 before the Civil Judge, Bidar, the Civil Judge came to confirm the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court. Therefore, the present appeal under S. 100 of the C. P. C. ( 9 ) STRANGELY Mr. K. S. Savanur's only contention before this Court is not that there is any error of law in the judgment of the trial Court but particularly that the lower appellate Court failed to consider the evidence adduced by the defendant in support of his plea and that there was not even a reference to it in the judgment and therefore, it was liable to be set aside. It was even urged that the learned Civil Judge had not even formulated the points for determination and as such the judgment and decree should not be allowed to stand by this Court. ( 10 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, the judgment of the lower appellate Court is brief and to the point. In my opinion, that would be something to the credit of the learned Judge. After noticing the rival contentions in the pleadings and the issues framed in the suit and the evidence recorded by the trial Court, he formulated the only point for consideration i. e. , whether the findings recorded by the trial Court on the issues framed were correct. Having regard to the Judgment of the Supreme Court and this Court, he rejected the plea of adverse possession. He also referred to the inconsistent stand taken by the defendant before the Land Tribunal and the trial Court in the matter of ownership and tenancy. He held that the title deed as at Ex. P7 had been correctly proved and satisfied the requirements of conferring proper title on the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, he found there were no reasons to interfere with the conclusions reached by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. ( 11 ) AS earlier noticed there is no error of law pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant in this Court. There is no question of law which is required to be decided by this Court. The mere fact that the Judgment of the lower appellate Court is brief is not a ground for setting it aside when the lower appellate Court agrees with the conclusions reached. It is now well established that it only means, that the lower appellate Court adopted the same reasoning and approved the conclusions. Therefore, the detailed discussion on each point as evidenced by the lower appellate Court's Judgment also is not necessary in the circumstances of many cases. ( 12 ) THE facts of this case is one such and the circumstance did not warrant detailed discussion of the defendants's evidence by the lower appellate Court. ( 13 ) THE appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .