B.N.KIRPAL, J. (1) LEAVE granted. (2) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that the name of Respondent 1(f) be deleted. The same is allowed at the risk of the petitioner (3) THE respondent deceased Puttappa had filed a suit OS No. 243 of 1978 in the Court of Munsif, Kadur for declaration of title and injunction or in the alternative for possession of the suit land. This suit was filed against Basappa, who was Puttappas brother-in-law. (4) BASAPPA, who is represented by his legal representatives who are the appellants in this appeal, in his written statement denied the title of Puttappa. His case was that Puttappa was only an ostensible owner and Basappa was the real owner. It was further contended in the written statement that Basappa had been in possession openly, continuously and adversely to the knowledge of Puttappa right from 1962 and as such he had perfected the title by adverse possession. (5) THE trial court by judgment dated 29-10-1980 decreed the suit holding that Puttappa was the real owner. The trial court further held that though Basappa was in possession of the land, it would not prove that he had perfected his title by adverse possession. (6) BASAPPA filed an appeal to the Civil Judge, who allowed the same after coming to the conclusion that Basappa had perfected his title by adverse possession. In arriving at this conclusion the first appellate court relied upon the oral evidence led on behalf of Basappa as also on the revenue entries which showed Basappas name in the cultivators column since the year 1963-64. The lower appellate court observed that Basappa had been in possession of the land since 1962 and his possession was continuous for about 16 years and therefore he had perfected his title by adverse possession. The appeal filed by Basappa, as already noted, was allowed (7) IN the second appeal, the Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court did not frame any question of law, leave alone a substantial question of law, and reversed the decision of the first appellate court by observing as follows: "AFTER hearing the contention of the counsel, I am convinced that the finding of the appellate court cannot be sustained. The appellate courts finding is not based even upon its own discussion and prima facie, it is perverse. The appellate courts finding is not based even upon its own discussion and prima facie, it is perverse. Even to make a plea of adverse possession, the defendant has to f prove that he was enjoying the property adversely to the interest of the plaintiff. The defendant must also specifically say/plead the time from which his possession became adverse. There is absolutely no pleading to that effect and the appellate court grossly erred in accepting the case of the defendant." (8) THE judgment of the High Court suffers at least from three infirmities. Firstly, as already noticed, no substantial question of law was framed. Secondly, the High Court disturbed the finding of fact which had been arrived at by the lower appellate court namely that Basappa had perfected his title by adverse possession. Thirdly, the High Court observed that the defendant had not pleaded that his possession had become adverse. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the specific plea taken in the written statement in which it is categorically stated that the defendant had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property to the knowledge of the plaintiff, openly, physically, continuously and adversely over the statutory period of 12 years and has thereby perfected his title by the right of adverse possession (9) THE High Court, in our opinion, fell in error in allowing the second appeal and in disturbing the well-considered judgment of the lower appellate court. (10) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the lower appellate court restored. Parties to bear their own costs.