G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant is the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 79 of 1975 on the file of the District munsif, Kalyandurg. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent herein is the 2nd defendant in the said suit. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit far declaration of his title to the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession of the same with future mesne profits and costs. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff averred that he is the owner of the eastern half of the plaint schedule property measuring an extent of ac. 13. 8 cents situated in S. No. 250/1b of, kambadur Village which was purchased by him through a registered sale-deed dated 12-1-1959 for a valuable consideration of rs. 1,000/ -. The 1st defendant purchased the western half of the suit schedule property measuring an extent of Ac. 13. 8 cents by a registered sale-deed dated 29-1-1959 for a valid (sic, valuable) consideration of rs. 1,000/ -. From the date of purchase the plaintiff as well as the 1st defendant were in possession and enjoyment of the land covered by the respective sale-deeds. Sometime prior to the date of filing of the suit i. e. , in the year 1971 the 1st defendant made an application to the Tahsildar for the sub-division of the land covered by Survey no. 250/lb. The Tahsildar ordered subdivision of the land of Ac. 26-16 cents covered in the said survey number by allotting Ac. 13. 8 cents of land to 250/1b/1 and another Ac. 13. 8 cents of land to 250 /ib/2 and forwarded the papers to the taluka Surveyor for taking necessary action. The Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land records, ignoring the documents of title of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and contrary to the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, effected unequal sub-division. Thus an extent of Ac. 1. 27 cents in excess had been sub-divided in favour of the 1st defendant behind the back of the plaintiff. The Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land records have no authority to alter the orders passed by the Tahsildar. Taking advantage of the demarcation ordered by the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land records, the 1st defendant trespassed into an extent of Ac. 1. The Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land records have no authority to alter the orders passed by the Tahsildar. Taking advantage of the demarcation ordered by the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land records, the 1st defendant trespassed into an extent of Ac. 1. 27 cents covered by A, B, c, D area in June 1973 by ploughing the ridge existing on the land. The 1st defendant has no title to the extent of ac. 1. 27 cents included in his land at the time of effecting sub-division of the land. When the plaintiff issued notice, the 1st defendant asserted that he was in possession and enjoyment of Ac. 14. 35 cents of land. Hence the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of Ac. 1. 27 cents of land from the 1st defendant. ( 4 ) THE 1st defendant filed a written statement denying the averments of the plaint. He contended that the total extent of s. No. 250/lb is Ac. 26. 16 cents, of which he purchased the western half of the land measuring Ac. 13. 8 cents and the plaintiff purchased the eastern half of the land measuring Ac. 13. 8 cents. About 6 or 7 years prior to purchase of the land by the plaintiff and himself, their vendors divided the property by metes and bounds making the same into two separate plots. The plots were demarcated by ridges put up from North to south. The vendors enjoyed their respective shares as per the ridges and after purchase of the land, he and the plaintiff were also enjoying the respective lands treating the ridge as the boundary. The plaintiff was not having possession of an extent of Ac. 13. 8 cents and he is in actual possession of an extent of 11. 81 cents whereas he is in actual possession of an extent of Ac. 14. 35 cents. The 1st defendant submitted that on an application for sub-division of the survey number, the survey authorities have subdivided the land as per the enjoyment of the land by himself and the plaintiff and the plaintiff also agreed for the same. No portion of the land which was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff was included in the sub-division of the 1st defendant. Since the 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of Ac. 14. No portion of the land which was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff was included in the sub-division of the 1st defendant. Since the 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of Ac. 14. 35 cents, of land since 1959, he perfected his title to the western half of Ac. 14. 35 cents by adverse possession. The plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed with costs. ( 5 ) THE 2nd defendant, though added as a proforma defendant, filed a written statement averring that the Deputy inspector of Survey and Land Records conducted a technical survey as per the procedure laid down in ESO 34-A para 13-B. The Deputy Inspector computed the area as per the enjoyment of each portion by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant with clear marked ridges and furnished the sub-division statement. The sub-division is in accordance with the rules. having regard to the enjoyment of the land by the respective parties. ( 6 ) THE trial court framed appropriate issues on the basis of the pleadings. The plaintiff in order to prove his case examined p. Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-29. The 1st defendant examined D. Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs. B-1 and B-2. ( 7 ) THE trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties dismissed the suit on 29-4-1981. ( 8 ) THE plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court preferred A. S. no. 11l5 of 1981 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Anantapur. The 1st appellate court after considering the material available on record held that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession and accordingly allowed the appeal on 30-4-1992 by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. ( 9 ) THE 1st defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the 1st appellate court preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality, ( 10 ) THERE is only one substantial question of law to be considered by this court viz. Whether the 1st defendant perfected his title over an extent of Ac. 1. 27 cents by adverse possession and whether the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as prayed for? Whether the 1st defendant perfected his title over an extent of Ac. 1. 27 cents by adverse possession and whether the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as prayed for? ( 11 ) IT is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff purchased an extent of Ac. 13. 8 cents, out of Ac. 26. 16 cents of land situated in Survey No. 250/lb under the original of ex. A-18 - sale-deed dated 12-1-1959. It is also an undisputed fact that the 1st defendant purchased an extent of Ac. 13. 8 cents of land through Ex. B-2 - sale-deed dated 29-1-1959. The total extent of the land covered by Survey No. 250/1b is Ac. 26. 16 cents. In Ex. A-18 the land purchased by the plaintiff was described as eastern half and in Ex. B-2 the land purchased by the 1st defendant was described as western half of the total extent of Ac. 26. 16 cents. A ridge was formed in the middle of the total extent of land thinking that it divides the land into equal halves. The plaintiff claims that the original ridge was disturbed and the 1st defendant occupying his land covered by ac. 1. 27 cents raised a new ridge. The deputy Inspector of Survey and Land records in his evidence as D. W. I stated that he sub-divided the land by taking the ridge as the boundary for both the portions. The 1st defendant pleads that since he was in possession and enjoyment of an extent of ac. 1. 27 cents from the date of purchase, he perfected his title by adverse possession. The 1st defendant mentioned in his written statement that the plaintiff s predecessor in title Marappa was only under the impression that it was half share, but his enjoyment was only restricted up to the ridge. Since the 1st defendant pleaded that he perfected his title to an extent of Ac. 1. 27 cents by adverse possession, the burden is on him to prove that he perfected the title by adverse possession. ( 12 ) THE 1st defendant did not deny the passing of title to the plaintiff to an extent of ac. 13. 8 cents under Ex. A-18 - sale-deed. The plaintiff in his evidence as P. W. 2 asserted his title on the basis of Ex. A-18 sale-deed to an extent of Ac. 13. 8 cents. ( 12 ) THE 1st defendant did not deny the passing of title to the plaintiff to an extent of ac. 13. 8 cents under Ex. A-18 - sale-deed. The plaintiff in his evidence as P. W. 2 asserted his title on the basis of Ex. A-18 sale-deed to an extent of Ac. 13. 8 cents. When once the plaintiff makes out title to the suit property, it is for the defendant to prove that the title of the plaintiff has existed (sic. been extinct) by adverse possession of the 1st defendant for over the statutory period. The burden is totally on the 1st defendant to prove when his possession has become adverse and since what date such possession continued for more than the statutory period of 12 years. ( 13 ) AN adverse possession is a mixed question of facts and law, which has to be decided only on the material placed by both parties. Adverse possession implies that it commenced in wrong and it maintained against the right. Adverse possession means, possession by a person holding the property on his own behalf and on behalf of some person other than the true owner having a right to minimum possession, provided the true owner is under a disability or incapable of suing. Concrete proof of open, hostile and continuous possession is required in order to substantiate a claim of perfection of title by adverse possession. Mere assertions would not be adequate without substantiating the same. ( 14 ) IN P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy the Supreme Court observed that insofar as the question of perfection of title by adverse possession is concerned, it should be nee vi nee clam nec precario i. e. , the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor. It was also observed therein mat whatever may be the animus or intention of a person wanting to acquire title by adverse possession, his adverse possession cannot commence until he obtains actual possession with the required animus, ( 15 ) IN Annasaheb Bapu Saheb Patil v. Balvant Babusaheb Path, the Supreme Court observed that a claim of adverse possession being a hostile assertion involving expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner, the burden is on the person who asserts title to show by clear and unequivocal evidence i. e. , possession was hostile to the real owner. In deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person. constitute adverse possession, regard must be had to the animus of the person doing those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. ( 16 ) IN the light of the above legal position regarding the perfection of title by adverse possession, it has to be tested with reference to the evidence adduced by both parties whether the 1st defendant succeeded in discharging his burden to disentitle the plaintiff the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property. ( 17 ) THE 1st defendant admits in his written statement that he purchased only an extent of Ac. 13. 8 cents under Ex. B-2 - saledeed. The 1st defendant is in possession of the western portion, but he is not aware of the exact extent of the land in his possession. The plaintiff was also not aware as to what was the exact extent of his land. Both of them were under the impression that they were enjoying the respective lands as per the recitals of their sale-deeds. The trial court in its judgment dated 29-4-1981 observed as follows:. . . . . As seen from the evidence on record, both the parties are totally unaware of the extents of the land held by both of them. . . . . It is clear from the evidence on record that the defendant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plot marked as s. No. 250/lb/l. Hence I hold that the adverse possession runs against the plaintiff ever since the date of purchase by the defendant. ( 18 ) THIS observation of the trial court, which resulted in the dismissal of the suit, was reversed by the 1st appellate court. ( 18 ) THIS observation of the trial court, which resulted in the dismissal of the suit, was reversed by the 1st appellate court. The 1st appellate court observed that as per the evidence and records of the lower court it is established that there was a ridge in between the land of the appellant-plaintiff and the 1st respondent-1st defendant which runs from North to South and the land on eastern side of the ridge belonged to the appellant-plaintiff and the land to the west of the ridge was in possession of the 1st respondent-1st defendant ever since the date of purchase. The 1st respondent admits that he was under the impression that he was in possession of half of the whole extent of survey number which means Ac. 13. 8 cents. The 1st respondent came to know that he is not in possession of Ac. 14. 35 cents after the scrutiny by P. W. 2 only. Since then he was under the impression that he possessed only Ac. 13. 8 cents. In such circumstances, the 1st respondent applied for the survey of the land to divide the joint patta which existed in the name of the appellant and himself. If really there was division between the parties and the division was evidenced by a ridge, there was no question of surveying the land and dividing half share of the 1st respondent. Even in Ex. A-8-application the 1st respondent clearly mentioned that he purchased Ac. 13. 8 cents of land on western side out of Ac. 26. 16 cents situated in Survey no. 250/1b. He made the application only to get the boundaries fixed as per the extents of land covered by the sale-deeds. Therefore, there was no scope of division of the land taking the ridge as the boundary. Even if the respondent was in possession of ac. 14. 35 cents by the date of survey, the fact that he is in possession of Ac. 1. 27 cents of the land of the plaintiff is not to the notice of the appellant and there was no fresh survey done by P. W. 2, it is an undisputed fact that in the revenue records the extent of land of the 1st defendant was shown as Ac. 13. 8 cents and the 1st defendant was paying the land revenue only to the said extent of land. 13. 8 cents and the 1st defendant was paying the land revenue only to the said extent of land. From the evidence adduced by both parties it is revealing that the 1st defendant came to know that he is in possession of Ac. 14. 35 cents only in 1971 i. e. , 3 or 4 years prior to the date of the suit. The plaintiff had no notice and knowledge that the 1st defendant was in possession of part of his land. ( 19 ) THE evidence adduced by the 1st defendant does not disclose that he, knowing fully well that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the property, declared to the plaintiff and to the public that he is in possession of Ac. 1. 27 cents of land of the plaintiff. However long the possession may be, it will not run against the plaintiff unless the 1st defendant proves that he continued in possession of the property with animus by his asserting title over the property of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant i. e. , the appellant herein failed to prove that his possession of the land in question is in continuity for more than the statutory period, in publicity and adverse to the plaintiff and that he perfected the title over the disputed land by adverse possession. ( 20 ) IN the light of the above observations, I am of the view that the 1st appellate court was justified in holding that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of his title and recovery of possession and the 1st appellate court was right in setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the 1st appellate court. Hence the appeal must fail. ( 21 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Anantapur in A. S. No. 115 of 1981, but under the circumstances without costs.