JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Original plaintiff, Mostt Lagni, wife of Tulsi Sao filed Title Suit No. 62 of 1976/2 of 1982 against defendant, Bhakoo Sao for declaration of title and interest over 6 x 53 land, being part of Plot No. 555 towards northern side running from east to west and for permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering with her possession over the suit land. 2. Admittedly plaintiff was owner of plot No. 555 and defendant was owner of continuous north plot No. 554. Dispute was whether suit land was part and parcel of Plot No. 555 or Plot No. 554. 3. According to plaintiff, some time in the year 1963, while constructing his house over Plot No. 554, defendant claimed northern vacant portion of Plot No. 554 and wanted to extend construction thereon, which was resisted. The defendant filed complaint case in Criminal Court, against the plaintiff and her husband, who were convicted and were sentenced to pay fine. Thereafter, defendant being embolded by decision in the said criminal case, started claiming his right over the suit land. Hence this suit. 4. Defendant on the other hand pleaded that on 15.12.1947, he purchased plot No. 554 with pre-existing compound wall on its western side, which was touching the northern wall of plaintiffs house over Plot No. 555. On 3.11.1969, plaintiff demolished a portion of his western compound wall, for which complaint case was filed, wherein plaintiff and her husband were convicted as sentenced. Plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land. Defendant came in possession thereof after his purchase in 1946 and confirmed his right, title and interest by adverse possession, to the knowledge of plaintiff as well as whole world. 5. A survey knowing pleader Commissioner was appointed by trial Court, who after taking scientific measurement of the land, in presence of parties, reported that the suit land was part and parcel of Plot No. 555. Total area of Plot No. 555 was 4 decimals, whereas the plaintiff was in possession of only 3.040 decimals and rest of it was encroached upon of defendant. There was boundary wall in partially broken condition in between house of parties and suit land was after the said boundary wall towards defendants side and was amalgamated with Plot No. 554. 6. There was boundary wall in partially broken condition in between house of parties and suit land was after the said boundary wall towards defendants side and was amalgamated with Plot No. 554. 6. Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that plaintiff had not left any part of Plot No. 555 at the time of construction of house as claimed, rather the said portion of Plot No. 555 was coming into possession of defendants vendor and after purchase defendant came in possession and continued. Defendant constructed latrine and wall and was growing vegetable over it. Plaintiff failed to prove her act of possession. She never used the suit land. There was no passage from plaintiffs side to come upon the suit land. Trial Court further held that defendant proved to have boundary wall possession, of the suit land without interruption. Plaintiff attempted to disturb his possession by breaking western wall in the year 1969, but could not succeed. It was, therefore, held that defendant perfected his title over the suit land by adverse possession. 7. Plaintiff filed appeal, against trial Courts decree, which was also dismissed by impugned judgment and decree. Trial Courts findings were affirmed. Hence, plaintiff filed the present second appeal. She died during pendency of this appeal and her heirs were substituted in his place. 8. I find that courts below considered depositions of defendants witnesses, DWs 1 to 6 and oh scrutiny came to conclusion that suit land was coming in possession of defendants vendor and after purchase he came in possession in year 1947. He had also constructed latrine and wall over it. His possession over continuous and without any interruption since 1947, to the plaintiffs knowledge, who once unsuccessfully tired to take forcible possession, by breaking the boundary wall. 9. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for appellants put stress on defendants admission in paragraph 8 of his cross- examination that he was in possession of Plot No. 554 from the time of his purchase and neither he nor his vendor was in possession of plot No. 555. 10. It is not in dispute that defendant purchased Plot No. 554 in 1947, with pre-existing boundary wall, which was touching plaintiffs, house, constructed over plot No. 555. 10. It is not in dispute that defendant purchased Plot No. 554 in 1947, with pre-existing boundary wall, which was touching plaintiffs, house, constructed over plot No. 555. He came in possession of the land within the boundary wall and continued openly and within plaintiffs knowledge, under bona fide impression that entire land was part and parcel of Plot No. 554. 11. This second appeal is concluded by concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below. 12. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees. This appeal is dismissed, but without costs. 13. Appeal dismissed.