JUDGMENT A.M. Farooq, J.--This is a second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure by the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 337 of 1992 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Bagalkot and it is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit and the same being confirmed in R.A. No. 34 of 1998 on the file of the learned First Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bagalkot, dismissing the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration to the effect that he has become the owner of 10 guntas of suit land by adverse possession or being in possession under the sale deed dated 19.3.1988 and consequently for permanent injunction and also demarcation of the boundaries. 3. The Plaintiff's case was that he was the owner of Sy. No. 147/IA situated at Mallapur village of Bagalkot Taluk. That the Defendant is the owner of Sy. No. 147/IB, which is adjacent to the land of Plaintiff. That the Plaintiff purchased the suit land from its previous owner under a registered sale deed dated 19.3.1988. That when he purchased, it was an irrigated land and a completely developed land in all respects. According to the Plaintiff, it is the erstwhile owner who had fully developed the land which was originally a dry land and after the development, irrigation facilities were provided and channels were created for the said purpose and through it, irrigation water was let in. That the tanks were constructed in the year 1975 for storage of water. That on purchase, the Plaintiff was put in possession of the land with all these developments and be started cultivating the land after purchase. 4. That in the year 1989, the Defendant filed an application for measurement of the land and the Surveyor from the office of the A.D.L.R., Bagalkot, measured the land. The Defendant did not inform the result of the measurement to the Plaintiff. That in the last week of December, 1990, the Plaintiff was served with notice from the office of the Tahsildar, Bagalkot, informing him that there is a boundary dispute in respect of the land of the Defendant and an enquiry is going to be held and the Plaintiff was asked to put in appearance. That in the last week of December, 1990, the Plaintiff was served with notice from the office of the Tahsildar, Bagalkot, informing him that there is a boundary dispute in respect of the land of the Defendant and an enquiry is going to be held and the Plaintiff was asked to put in appearance. That he appeared and contested the proceeding and during the proceeding, he applied for another measurement of the suit land. Before it could be done, the Tahsildar, Bagalkot disposed of the proceedings against him and that he filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bagalkot, which was also dismissed and hence the suit. 5. It is contended by the Plaintiff that earlier to him, his predecessors were in possession of 10 guntas exercising ownership and possessory rights over the alleged encroached area since 1969 and that they have openly, peacefully and without any interruption and as a matter of right with complete knowledge of the Defendant and his predecessors in title and they have been in exclusive possession of the encroached area and hence the Plaintiff has become the owner by adverse possession for which the declaration is sought for. 6. The Defendant denied all the plaint averments and contended that the Plaintiff has deliberately encroached the land after his purchase of his land and there is no adverse possession as contended by the Plaintiff and sought for dismissal of the suit. The trial Court on the pleadings of the parties, framed necessary issues and held that the Plaintiff and his predecessors have developed the land and the encroached area of 10 guntas, but negatived Issue No. 3 to the effect that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that he or his predecessors in title have acquired the right, title and interest over the encroached area by way of adverse possession. It also negatived the contention of the Defendant that the Plaintiff has encroached upon 10 guntas of land only after his purchase. In view of the finding on the question of adverse possession, in respect of Issue No. 3, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that it was not sufficient to prove mere possession but the Plaintiff also should prove adverse or hostile possession to claim ownership by adverse possession and accordingly dismissed the suit. In view of the finding on the question of adverse possession, in respect of Issue No. 3, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that it was not sufficient to prove mere possession but the Plaintiff also should prove adverse or hostile possession to claim ownership by adverse possession and accordingly dismissed the suit. Against the said decree, the Plaintiff filed a First Appeal before the Lower Appellate Court and the Lower Appellate Court relied upon several judgments cited before him and found that the view taken by the trial Court as regards the question of adverse possession is just and in accordance with law. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court does not call for any interference and accordingly, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. 8. It was contended on behalf of the Plaintiff-Appellant that there is concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below that the alleged encroached portion of 10 guntas of land is in possession of the Plaintiff and it has been in the possession of his predecessors in title right from the year 1969. It is also held that the development in respect of the entire land including the disputed area of 10 guntas took place long back. That it is held that even when the predecessors of the Plaintiff were in possession, the developments took place. He therefore, contended that when the Courts below have concurrently held that the Plaintiff and earlier to him, his vendors have been in continuous possession of the land it ought to have held that the Plaintiff has become the owner by adverse possession. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, both the Courts below have erred in holding that the Plaintiff was not in adverse possession of the land. It was submitted that all the while when the Plaintiff and his predecessors were in possession of the land and when the Defendant has come to know about the same, he has not protested his possession and did not take any steps to take back the possession of the encroached portion. It was submitted that all the while when the Plaintiff and his predecessors were in possession of the land and when the Defendant has come to know about the same, he has not protested his possession and did not take any steps to take back the possession of the encroached portion. That it should be understood that the Plaintiff has been openly ascertaining his rights and it is adverse to the Defendant and hence, the Courts below were not justified in holding that the Plaintiff has become the owner by adverse possession. He also cited several judgments in support of his contention. 9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that it is true that both the Courts below have given findings as to the possession of 10 guntas of encroached portion of the Defendant's land being in possession of the Plaintiff and that the Defendant in this second appeal is not questioning the said finding. But, according to the learned Counsel, both the Courts below have taken the right view by holding that there is no 'animus possidendi' to own the encroached land and there is absolutely no material to show that at any time, the Plaintiff has confronted the Defendant with the alleged animus. It is submitted that even the Plaintiff came to know about the encroachment only when the measurement was taken by the Surveyor on an application filed by the Defendant and therefore, the question of adverse possession by the Plaintiff does not arise. Learned Counsel also cited certain judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10. At the time when the matter was admitted, the following substantial questions of law were framed: 1. Whether the Courts below are justified in going to the issue of adverse possession once having held that the Appellants have established their ownership by virtue of the sale deed? 2. Whether the Courts below have failed to apply the principles of 'tacking' for deciding adverse possession? 11. Whether the Courts below are justified in going to the issue of adverse possession once having held that the Appellants have established their ownership by virtue of the sale deed? 2. Whether the Courts below have failed to apply the principles of 'tacking' for deciding adverse possession? 11. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the question for consideration is whether the Appellant has been able to satisfy the Court that by being in possession for more than 12 years, he could contend and claim title by adverse possession and as to whether a person in possession claim adverse possession by tacking his possession with that of his predecessors in title without showing animus to possess against the true owner? 12. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the Appellants, it may not be necessary to repeat once again the facts. But, it is enough to say that the Plaintiff has proved that he and his predecessors in title have been in possession of the encroached 10 guntas of land since more than 20 years before filing the suit. But, the question for consideration is whether such possession could be said to be adverse possession and what are the requirements of claiming adverse possession. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant relied upon the judgment reported in Nair Service Society Ltd. Vs. Rev. Father K.C. Alexander and Others, AIR 1968 SC 1165 . Relying upon the said judgment, it was contended that a person in possession of land and exercising peacefully the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by the process of law within the period of limitation applicable to the case, his right is for ever will be extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title. That was the case where the Plaintiff claimed to be in possession of certain lands for over 70 years under a lease for 12 years and after the lease, the Society has applied for anr. lease under "Kuthakapattom" and obtained the same. That was the case where the Plaintiff claimed to be in possession of certain lands for over 70 years under a lease for 12 years and after the lease, the Society has applied for anr. lease under "Kuthakapattom" and obtained the same. The question raised also included the question as to whether there was dispossession of the Plaintiff and the Supreme Court held on the facts and circumstances of the case that if it was proved that there was possession over the statutory period, it is adverse possession. The Apex Court had depended upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the peculiar nature of the local statute. The Appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kshitish Chandra Bose Vs. Commissioner of Ranchi, AIR 1981 SC 707 . The learned Counsel relying upon para-8 of the judgment contended that the Supreme Court has held that 'it is not necessary that the possession must be so effective so as to bring it to the specific knowledge of the owner. Such a requirement may be insisted on, where an ouster of title is pleaded.' But, that is not the case here. In the present case, there is no pleadings of ouster of title. Therefore, the said judgment is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. He also relied upon the judgment in Bondar Singh and Others Vs. Nihal Singh and Others, AIR 2003 SC 1905 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 'the possession secured under an unstamped and unregistered sale deed for more than the requisite period and on the facts proved in the said case, the Court held that the Plaintiff have proved that they were in continuous uninterrupted possession since 1931 and they having set up hostile title thereto against the Defendants who started asserting their title only from 1956 and hence plea of adverse possession of Plaintiffs established.' In the said case also, the facts disclosed that there was open assertion of possession adverse to the owners. The said case also depended upon the facts proved in the case. 13. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent cited the judgment of this Court reported in Danappa Revappa Kolli Vs. Gurupadappa Mallappa Pattanashetti, ILR (1990) KAR 610 . The said case also depended upon the facts proved in the case. 13. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent cited the judgment of this Court reported in Danappa Revappa Kolli Vs. Gurupadappa Mallappa Pattanashetti, ILR (1990) KAR 610 . Where the Court considering several judgments of the Supreme Court, the Privy Council and High Courts held that: 'to seek title by adverse possession, mere continuous possession is not sufficient. But, there should be necessary animus on the part of the person who intends to perfect his title by adverse possession.' It also held that 'a person who under the bonafide belief thinks that the property belongs to him and as such he has been in possession, such possession cannot at all be adverse possession because it lacks necessary animus for perfecting title by adverse possession.' Hence, in my view, the above ruling if clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The pleading of the Plaintiff and the findings given by both the Courts below shows that even though the Plaintiff and his predecessors have been in possession for more than the statutory period, they were not at all aware that they have been in adverse possession of the Defendants piece of land. They came to know about their encroachment only when the Surveyor visited the land and took measurement and when it was found that there was encroachment of 10 guntas, then only they came to know that they have been in possession of a portion of land belonging to the Defendant. Therefore, as held by this Court in the above mentioned judgment, there was absolutely no animus on the part of the Plaintiff to possess the encroached land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 95 SC 895 (Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and Ors. v. Balwant @ Balasaheb Babusaheb Patil (dead) by L.Rs. and Heirs etc.,) has held that adverse possession means a hostile assertion i.e., possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and that a person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. 14. 14. In the present case, the Plaintiff even though has shown that he has been utilising the encroached portion of 10 guntas of land believing it to be a part of his own land had never proved that he asserted any animus to possess the said land against the true owner and infact he was not even aware that he was in adverse possession of the land belonging to the Defendant. When such is the case, the question on which Plaintiff seeking declaration of title by adverse possession does not arise and he cannot succeed when he has failed to prove that he had at any time questioned the title of the Defendant. Thus, on reconsidering the questions of law involved in the case, I find that both the Courts below have gone on the right track is considering the questions involved in the case. The Plaintiff/Appellant has failed to prove that he has perfected his title to the encroached portion of the suit schedule property of 10 guntas of land by adverse possession. Further, even though it is true that a person in possession could tack on to the possession of his predecessors in title to seek adverse possession but he should further prove that his predecessors in title were asserting their adverse possession against the true owner and when that is not proved in this case, the question of tacking also does not arise. 15. In the result, I confirm the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below and hold that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that this second appeal involves the substantial question of law as raised by him arise in the second appeal. Second appeal is dismissed accordingly. 16. No order as to costs.