SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Prl. Civil Judge, Gulbarga, in R. A. No. 133/1982 dated 18. 8. 1990 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, chincholi in O. S. No. 26/1980 dated 20. 4. 1982. ( 2 ) THE essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal are as follows: the parties would be referred to with reference to the rank before the Trial Court. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of ownership, possession and for future mesne profits from the defendant averring that the suit schedule property known as Tari Hola measuring 3 acres 16 guntas in Sy. No. 197 situated at Chincholi Taluk, Gulbarga district as per the boundary given in the schedule is of the ownership of the plaintiffs. It is averred that one Lingappa was the ancestor of the plaintiffs parent s family. Said Lingappa had three sons - anthappa, Sayanna and Mallappa. Anthappa is the father of the plaintiff and Papamma was the mother of the plaintiff. Sayanna had a son of name Lingappa. Said Lingappa went in adoption to bhagavathi family. Mallappa had a son by name Lachappa. Said lachappa had a son Anthappa, husband of the defendant. It is averred that Lingappa and his three sons Anthappa, Sayanna are no more. It is averred that mother of the plaintiff expired on 3. 12. 1968 at Belkattur. It is averred that the suit schedule land was being cultivated by the mother of the plaintiffs through the defendant by supplying seeds and other material on the condition that the defendant would be given fodder and the defendant was cultivating the land on the basis of the material given by the plaintiffs mother and was getting fodder as consideration for growing the crops. After the death of Papamma the plaintiffs have succeeded to the schedule property as owners. The defendant is nothing to do with the suit property or to the succession of the plaintiffs mother Papamma. After the death of Papamma the plaintiffs have succeeded to the schedule property as owners. The defendant is nothing to do with the suit property or to the succession of the plaintiffs mother Papamma. Defendant being relative of the plaintiff and since parties were in good relations among themselves and as the plaintiffs are residing at Belkattur, the land was being got cultivated through the defendant subject to the condition referred to above and it is further averred that as usual the plaintiff came to Chincholi about 11 months prior to the filing of the suit on 27. 6. 1980 and asked the defendant how much seeds were required for the crops to be grown in the suit land. Defendant replied that the suit land belongs to her and plaintiff has nothing to do with the suit land and then the plaintiffs went to tahsildar office and ascertained that the entries in the revenue records were made in the name of the defendant by making false representation and fraud was played by the defendant and wherefore the suit for declaration, possession for mesne profits. ( 3 ) THE defendant resisted the suit and contended that defendant is the owner of the schedule property, her husband Anthappa was adopted by Papamma and after the death of Papamma her husband succeeded to the property and after the death of her husband, the defendant is cultivating the land in her own right and as she has succeeded to the property of her husband who is the adopted son of Papamma and plaintiffs are not the owners of the schedule property and it was further averred that suit is barred by time. Defendant asserted in the alternative that she is in adverse possession of suit land for more than 12 years continuously openly and within the knowledge and exclusion of the plaintiff and has perfected her ownership and title over the suit schedule land and wherefore the suit is barred by time and is liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff filed the rejoinder reiterating the averment made in the plaint and denied the averment made in the written statement of the defendant that her husband was the adopted son of Papamma. The Trial Court framed appropriate issues. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff was examined as PW. 1 and PWs. 2 to 6 were examined and Exs. The Trial Court framed appropriate issues. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff was examined as PW. 1 and PWs. 2 to 6 were examined and Exs. P1 to P13 were got marked. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant was examined as DW. 1 and DWs. 2 to 6 were examined on her behalf and Exs. D1 to D8 were got marked. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 20. 4. 1982 held that defendant has failed to prove that her husband was the adopted son of Papamma and the plaintiff has proved that she has inherited the suit property after the death of her mother papamma. However the Trial Court held that the defendant had failed to prove that Papamma died on 31. 12. 1968 or on 1. 10. 1960 and the defendant has perfected her title of schedule property by adverse possession and wherefore the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief as sought to the suit and accordingly dismissed the suit. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and her legal representatives were brought on record. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the legal representatives of the plaintiff preferred RA. No. 133/1982 and the prl. Civil Judge, Gulbarga, by his judgment dated 18. 8. 1990 confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. ( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, this appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiffs. ( 8 ) THIS matter was disposed of by order dated 14. 7. 2000 by allowing the appeal and the respondent herein filed Civil Appeal no. 4526/2000 arising out of SLP. (CC) No. 7629/1999 and the supreme Court by order dated 11. 8. 2000 set aside the Judgment passed by this Court without entering into merits of the decision in the second appeal and remitted the matter to this Court to reconsider after framing the substantial questions of law and also to consider the judgment of this Court in BASAPPA vs PUTTAPPA to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. 8. 2000 set aside the Judgment passed by this Court without entering into merits of the decision in the second appeal and remitted the matter to this Court to reconsider after framing the substantial questions of law and also to consider the judgment of this Court in BASAPPA vs PUTTAPPA to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. ( 9 ) THIS appeal has been admitted for consideration of the following substantial questions of law:1) Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by time when there is no clear averment or evidence to prove the date or the year from which the possession of the respondent became adverse to the appellant?2) Whether there is any evidence on record to hold that Smt. Papamma died on 1. 10. 1960, when the death certificate Ex. P1 produced by the plaintiff was rejected? ( 10 ) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and I answer the above said substantial questions of law as follows: point No. 1: In the affirmative. The Courts below were justified in holing that the defendant had perfected her title by adverse possession and the suit of the plaintiff was barred by time. 1. (2002) 8 SCC 565point No. 2: In the affirmative. The Courts below were justified in holding that Papamma died on 1. 10. 1960. ( 11 ) THESE points are considered together since they are interconnected and to avoid repetition. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff has succeeded to the schedule property as the legal heir of Papamma being her daughter and have further held that the defendant has failed to prove that her husband was adopted by Papamma and that she is cultivating the land in her own right. However, having held so the Courts below were not justified in dismissing the suit on the ground that defendant has perfected her title by adverse possession. However, having held so the Courts below were not justified in dismissing the suit on the ground that defendant has perfected her title by adverse possession. He submitted that there is no pleading or evidence regarding the acquisition of title by adverse possession by the defendant and the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is arbitrary and perverse as the same is not based on pleading and material on record and therefore the suit of the plaintiff is entitled to be decreed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that both the Courts below have concurrently held that the defendant has perfected her title by adverse possession and the said finding is arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record and the same does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of the power under Section 100 of CPC, as the scope of interference in second appeal is limited and the concurrent finding of the Courts below does not suffer from any error or illegality so as to call for interference in this appeal. ( 13 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that Papamma died on 31. 12. 1968 at Belkattur Village Tandur Taluk, Andhra Pradesh, that according to the defendant she died on 4. 10. 1960. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that Papamma died on 31. 12. 1968 and the material on record clearly probabalise the version of defendant that Papamma died on 1. 10. 1960. ( 14 ) I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties before Trial Court and the judgment passed by the Trial Court and the lower appellate Court and it is clear from perusal of the same that plaintiff is relying upon the evidence as p. W. 1 as also the evidence of PWs. 4 and 5 and Ex. P. 1 P. W. 1 has not clearly stated the date of death of Papamma and PWs. 4 and 5 have also not stated the exact date of death. However, the plaintiff relied upon Ex. P1. The Courts below have held that Ex. P. 1 is not a certified copy issued by the competent Authority as it is clear from the evidence of PW. 4 and 5 have also not stated the exact date of death. However, the plaintiff relied upon Ex. P1. The Courts below have held that Ex. P. 1 is not a certified copy issued by the competent Authority as it is clear from the evidence of PW. 6 who is examined to prove the contents of ex. P. 1 that his father was the Police Patel during 1967-68 and the contents of Ex. P. 1 has been written by one Abeebuddin who was working under his father and the contents of Ex. P. 1 is in the signature of Abeebuddin and according to him, the said person who has made entry in Ex. P. 1 is no more as he is dead. However the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to secure the original register. Even otherwise it is clear from the perusal and the material on record that there is no material to show that Ex. P. 1 is not the certified copy issued by the competent authority, the person who has required to keep the register under the provisions of the Act. However, the evidence of DW. 1 and DW. 3, 6 and the certificate Ex. D7 which is the certified copy issued under the Births and Deaths Act would clearly show that Papamma died on 1. 10. 1960 and having regard to the above said material on record the Courts have rightly come to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove that Papamma died on 31. 12. 1968 and defendant has proved that Papamma died on 1. 10. 1960 and the said finding is based upon the above said material on record and cannot at all be said to be arbitrary or perverse and in the light of rejection of Ex. P. 1 as rightly held by the Courts below, the Courts below have rightly relied upon the evidence adduced by the defendant and Ex. D7 and accordingly, I answer substantial question of law No 2. ( 15 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the following decisions:1. G. HAMPAMMA vs KARTIGI SAJJIVALADA KALINGAPPA 2. SMT. GANGAVVA BALAPPA HADIMANI vs LAKSHMIBAI 3. D. N. VENKATARAYAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA 4. R. PRAKASH vs G. P. MARTHAMMA 2. ILR 1989 KARNATAKA 2764 3. ILR 2001 KARNATAKA 3323 4. AIR 1997 SC 2930 5. ILR 2000 KARNATAKA 1223 5. G. HAMPAMMA vs KARTIGI SAJJIVALADA KALINGAPPA 2. SMT. GANGAVVA BALAPPA HADIMANI vs LAKSHMIBAI 3. D. N. VENKATARAYAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA 4. R. PRAKASH vs G. P. MARTHAMMA 2. ILR 1989 KARNATAKA 2764 3. ILR 2001 KARNATAKA 3323 4. AIR 1997 SC 2930 5. ILR 2000 KARNATAKA 1223 5. KRISHNASWAMY NAIDU vs JAGANNATHA NAIDU 6. T. R. SRIKANTAIAH SETTY vs BALAKRISHNA AND another. ( 16 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has relied upon the following decisions:1. A. KRISHNAPPA vs THIMMARAYAPPA AND OTHERS 2. RAMJANAM vs RADHAKRISHNA CHAUBE AND OTHERS 3. THE KARNATAKA WAKF BOARD vs STATE OF karnataka 4. NARENDRA JAYANTILAL MODI vs VADILAL BAPALAL MODI and OTHERS. ( 17 ) I have given anxious consideration to the contentions of the parties and perused the decisions relied upon by the parties. The supreme Court in its order of remand of this case after setting aside the order passed by this Court has directed that this appeal shall be disposed of in accordance with law and after considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in BASAPPA vs PUTTAPPA decided on 14. 1. 2001, the said decisions is reported in (2000) 8 SCC 565 wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows: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. ( 18 ) IN the said case the Civil Judge had held in appeal that basappa had perfected his title by adverse possession and in arriving at the said conclusion that the first appellate Court has relied upon the oral evidence lead on behalf of Basappa as also on the revenue entries which show that Basappa s name in cultivator s column has been entered since 1963-64 and he has been in possession of the land since 1962 and his possession was continuous for about 16 years and therefore he has perfected his title by adverse possession. However, the said judgment was set aside by this Court and the supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court and restored the judgment of the lower appellate Court with the above said observations. ( 19 ) IN the present case it is clear from the perusal of the written statement that there is clear averment to the effect that in the alternative the defendant has averred that he asserts that she is in adverse possession of the said land for more than 12 years continuously, openly and to the knowledge and inclusion of the plaintiff and all the concerned and she has perfected her ownership and title of the said land by prescription. It is true that defendant claimed that her husband is the adopted son of Papamma, but both the Courts below have negatived the said contention and the same material is based upon the evidence on record and the Courts below have held that Papamma perfected her title by adverse possession as she has continued to be in possession of the property after the death of Papamma, her husband was in possession of the property and after the death of her husband, she has been in possession of the property for more than 12 years openly, continuously to the knowledge and to the exclusion of the plaintiff and wherefore, she has perfected her title by adverse possession. The material on record clearly shows that the said finding arrived at by the Courts below is clearly based upon the correct appreciation of the material on record. In view of the finding that Papamma died on 1. 10. The material on record clearly shows that the said finding arrived at by the Courts below is clearly based upon the correct appreciation of the material on record. In view of the finding that Papamma died on 1. 10. 1960 and in view of the admitted fact that the suit schedule property is in the possession of the defendant, it is clear that the Courts below have rightly held that the husband of the defendant was in possession of the property and three years after the death of Papamma defendant has continued to be in possession of the property and Courts below have held that the title become adverse to the defendant and she asserted her title claiming adverse possession and the revenue 6. 1996 (5) KLJ 181 7. ILR 1999 KAR. 2953 8. AIR 2001 KARNATAKA 470 9. (1996) 8 SCC 277 10. AIR 1996 KARNATAKA 55 11. (1989) 2 SCC 630 records were changed in her name from 1967-68. Though it is contended by the plaintiff that the said entry has been made without issue of notice to the plaintiff, the said contention is not substantiated and further, there is no material to show that the plaintiff had taken any steps to get her name entered in the record of rights as successor to Papamma. Further, there is also material on record to show that Papamma had asserted her right over the property adverse to the owner after the entry was made in her favour from 1967 -68 and she had also availed loan from the Bank and she had also received the compensation in respect of portion of the land acquired and this material on record would clearly show that she had perfected her little by adverse possession in the light of the decision of the supreme Court in Basappa s case referred to above and the said concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below is based upon the material on record being the oral and documentary evidence on record which has been considered by the Courts in the right perspective and the judgment and decree and concurrent finding of fact therein cannot at all be said to be arbitrary or perverse so as to call for interference in exercise of the power under Section 100 of cpc. , Accordingly I answer substantial question of law No. 1 also against the appellants and pass the following order: the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. --- *** --- .