M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a defendant's second appeal having suffered adverse Judgments and decrees by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. The brief facts leading to this appeal may be stated and they are as follows: plaintiffs Basavaraju, Gancshappa and parvathi filed Original Suit No. 173 of 1981 in the court of the Principal Munsiff at Arasikere pleading that defendant Shivananjappa was none other than the brother of the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and husband of plaintiff No. 3 Byregowda. Defendant had dispossessed them from the suit schedule properties after Byregowda had left arasikere without being traced some two years earlier. It was their case that the defendant (appellant in this Court) had been enjoying suit property for 7 to 8 years prior to the filing of the suit denying them the fruits though there was a partition between Byregowda and the defendant shivananjappa. The fact that Byregowda had not been traced for more than nine years, lead to the presumption that he was dead and therefore, plaintiffs 1 to 3 had acquired, right, title and interest in the properties of Byregowda and therefore, they were entitled to the declaration of title and possession of the suit schedule property. On such pleadings, the defendant resisted the reliefs prayed for inter alia on the ground that the said Byregowda and the defendant are the divided members of the family that they had not divided on 20-5-1960 as claimed by the plaintiffs, but divided long before 1960 and are enjoying their respective shares separately. The fact that the plaintiffs are members of joint family of byregowda was admitted. It was, however, stated to be false that the first plaintiff was aged about 20 years, but he was more than 22 years. Therefore, the suit filed by him was time-barred. Defendant further pleaded that at no time he quarrelled with Byregowda or practiced cruelty on him. He pleaded that the suit schedule property had not fallen to the share of Byregowda at the partition but to his share and possession was given to him. He further dented that he had dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property some 7 or 8 years before the filing of the suit. He denied that he was in illegal possession of the same. He further dented that he had dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property some 7 or 8 years before the filing of the suit. He denied that he was in illegal possession of the same. The suit schedule property was enjoyed by the defendant as absolute owner even prior to 1960. Therefore, the allegation of the plaintiff was without foundation. In that circumstance the defendant was not liable to pay any damages for unlawful occupation. Neither byregowda nor the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands from 1960. The defendant being in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands even before 1960. The claim of the plaintiff was hit by adverse possession and therefore, the present suit was not maintainable. Thus there was no cause of action for the suit. When plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit schedule property at no time the question of mesne profits did not arise. Therefore, the suit may be dismissed. On such pleading the trial Court framed as many as five issues as set out below: 1. Whether plaintiffs prove their title to the suit property as alleged? ( 2 ) WHETHER plaintiffs further prove that defendants are in illegal and wrongful - possession of the suit property as alleged? ( 3 ) WHETHER plaintiffs are entitled for possession of suit property? ( 4 ) WHETHER they arc entitled to the mesneprofits, if so, at what rale? ( 5 ) WHETHER the valuation made and Court-fee paid is improper and incorrect? on all the issues framed, the trial Court found in favour of the plainfiff and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, defendant appealed to the civil Judge, Arasikere in R. A. No. 203/1987. The appellate Court has confirmed the decree of the trial Court. It is useful to state that the plaintiffs in support of their case, examined first plaintiff as P. W. 1 and two other witnesses and got marked as many as 31 documents, while the defendant got examined one Giriyappa as D. W. 1 and himself as D. W. 2 and got marked as many as five documents. From the narration of the defence taken, it is quite clear that there was no clear plea in regard to adverse possession at all. From the narration of the defence taken, it is quite clear that there was no clear plea in regard to adverse possession at all. The tenor ofthe defence was that in so far as the suit schedule property was concerned, Byregowda was never in possession, but it had fallen to the share of the defendant and he had continued to enjoy that property as his own as it had fallen to his share at the partition which had taken place long before 1960. Question of adverse possession will arise only if the defendant admits title of the plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-title at some point of lime after which for 12 continuous years, the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment adverse and hostile to the true owner. If that plea is not there, the Court cannot take a vague averment that he had perfected his title by adverse possession seriously. In any event the point pressed in this Court was that the Courts-below erred in not fixing a time from which the point of limitation for determining adverse possession commenced. From what I have stated earlier, there was no plea of adverse possession nor was an issue framed on that behalf. It was raised for the first time in the lower appellate Court, while arguing the case. The lower appellate Court has dealt with that point as Point No. 2. 1 may observe that the lower appellate Court has rendered its Judgment in kannada. The point formulated if translated freely reads as follows:-"whether the defendant-appellant establishes that he has been in possession of the suit schedule property even from a point of time before 1960 holding the same adverse to the title of the plaintiffs or his predecessor-in- title in his own right?"from the summary of the written statement extracted earlier in the course of this Judgment, it is patent, the case of the defendant was that was in possession of the property in his own right as the suit property has fallen to his share at a partition. Therefore, he claimed title in himself. Therefore, question of holding adverse to the title of somebody else never arose. Therefore, he claimed title in himself. Therefore, question of holding adverse to the title of somebody else never arose. Nevertheless, the lower appellate Court in determining that point or deciding that point has stated as follows: that there was no doubt there was a partition as evidenced by Exhibit P-1 and that the property which is the suit schedule property had fallen to the share of Byregowda or Byrappa brother of defendant-appellant and the same was entered in the khirdi and khata (revenue registers and index of land ). The plaintiffs had evidenced payment of land revenue upto 1974-75 evidencing their enjoyment upto that point of time. It was in that circumstance, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion, without a proper plea of adverse possession and no specific plea as to at what point of time the defendant had entered possession and enjoyment against the true owner, he could not raise the question of adverse possession, much less prove it. He also made an observation that the evidence led did not at all evidence or support the plea of adverse possession. Therefore, he decided Point No. 2 against the appellant. In this Court Smt. Nargund appearing for the appellant has strenuously contended that the Courts below ignored the earlier suit which had been filed by the defendant-appellant for claiming share in certain other properties to which the plaintiffs were parties and in that case mother of defendant-appellant and Byregowda had given evidence stating that her son Byregowda had disappeared from arasikere some 20 years prior to the date of her giving evidence. Therefore, learned counsel contended the entire plaint allegations that byregowda had disappeared some 8 or 9 years, prior to the filing of the suit was wholly incorrect and the trial Court erred in not noticing it though the Judgment was produced before it and marked in evidence. It is well-settled rule of evidence that evidence given in an other case involving different issues will not be evidence ipso facto merely because the Judgment of that case was produced in another case. No authority has been submitted or cited by Smt. Nargund to the contrary. It is well-settled rule of evidence that evidence given in an other case involving different issues will not be evidence ipso facto merely because the Judgment of that case was produced in another case. No authority has been submitted or cited by Smt. Nargund to the contrary. It was next urged by the learned Counsel that the failure to frame the issue was specifically raised by the counsel for the appellant before the lower appellate Court with a prayer to remand the case to record evidence raising that issue of adverse possession. But I have already noticed that there was no sufficient plea in the written statement to give rise to that issue. Assuming there was, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Nedunuri Kameswarappa v Sampaty subba Rao, AIR 1963 SC 884 as long as parties go to trial knowing each others case on the pleadings entered by them, non-framing of the issue will not be fatal to the case. In that view of the matter, this second appeal has no merit and on the facts pleaded and evidenced, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Court. Therefore, it is dismissed. --- *** --- .