JUDGMENT : Even though this matter is posted for admission today, with consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff No.1, challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Humnabad in R.A.No.121/2011 confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2007 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Humnabad in O.S.No.15/2005. 3. Rank of the parties in the trial Court is taken as it is in this appeal also. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property. Plaintiffs’ grandfather viz., Siddayya had mortgaged the suit property under unregistered document in favour of defendant’s father viz., Veerbhadrappa in the year 1946. Plaintiffs’ grandfather viz., Siddayya had filed a suit in O.S.No.97/1958 for redumption of mortgage deed and recovery of possession. The suit filed by the Sidayya was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, he has filed appeal in R.A.No.30/1964. The First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed Regular Second Appeal before this Court in RSA.No.571/1967. This Court by on 26.05.1972 has dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant. 5. It is further case of the plaintiffs that even after they succeeded in the earlier suit, in revenue records the name of defendant has been continued. Hence, they have filed a suit in O.S.No.15/2005 for declaration and rectification of revenue entries. 6. After service of summons, the defendant has filed written statement and taken defense that, he has perfected his title by adverse possession. He further contended that, he has purchased the suit property. Further case of the defendant is that, he has obtained decree, but he has not filed any petition for execution of the decree for restoring the possession. The defendant had also filed the original suit in O.S.No.135/2004 for declaration and injunction on the basis of adverse possession. The trial Court has clubbed the matters together and passed common judgment. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial Court has framed the following issues in O.S.No.15/2005. 1. Whether plaintiffs prove that, they came in actual possession and enjoyment over the suit land in the month of June 1972 i.e., after the judgment passed in RSA.No.571 of 1967 (Deleted vide order dated 23.06.2007) 2. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial Court has framed the following issues in O.S.No.15/2005. 1. Whether plaintiffs prove that, they came in actual possession and enjoyment over the suit land in the month of June 1972 i.e., after the judgment passed in RSA.No.571 of 1967 (Deleted vide order dated 23.06.2007) 2. Whether defendant proves that, he perfected his title by way of adverse possession over the suit property? 3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought? 4. What decree or order? ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1. Whether plaintiffs prove that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit property? 2. Whether plaintiffs prove that, the plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit? 3. Whether the issue of defendants ownership over the suit property is barred under Section 11 of CPC? 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 5. Whether the defendant proves that, the defendant is absolute owner of the suit property? 8. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has dismissed the suit in O.S.No.15/2005 filed by the plaintiffs. Decreed the suit filed by the defendant in O.S.No.135/2004 holding that, defendant has proved his plea of adverse possession over the suit property and declared that, defendant is the owner of the suit property. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed regular appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Humnabad in R.A.No.121/2011. The First Appellate Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the appellants/plaintiffs prove that, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perverse, arbitrary and this Court interference is necessary? 2. To what order or relief? 10. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the First Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 11. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs/ appellants have preferred this appeal. 12. In this case, the following substantial question of law would arise for consideration. “Whether the Courts below is right in holding that, the defendant has proved all ingredients of plea of adverse possession.” 13. Sri.Sanjeev kumar.C.Patil, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and rectification of revenue records. The defendant has setup with plea of adverse possession. “Whether the Courts below is right in holding that, the defendant has proved all ingredients of plea of adverse possession.” 13. Sri.Sanjeev kumar.C.Patil, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and rectification of revenue records. The defendant has setup with plea of adverse possession. To establish the adverse possession, he has to prove the following ingredients :- (a) On what date he came into possession, (b) What was the nature of his possession, (c) Whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) How long his possession has continued, and (e) His possession was open and undisturbed. There is no any pleading in respect of the above aspects. He has not proved the said aspects by adducing any evidence. The trial Court without discussing any of this point has erred in holding that, defendant has proved the adverse possession. In support of his contention he has placed reliance of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawanthrao since deceased by his Lrs /vs/ Rajkumar reported in ILR 2009 KAR 1099. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal. 14. Per contra, Sri.Amresh.S.Roja, learned counsel for the respondent No.10 submits that, defendant has filed a separate suit for declaration and injunction on the basis of adverse possession. He has taken the specific contention in the written statement regarding adverse possession. Since, the both the matters were clubbed together. Taking into consideration of the pleadings of the parties in both the suits on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties, the trial Court had rightly came to conclusion that, defendant has proved the adverse possession. On oral and documentary evidence the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by any adverse possession. Hence, Court below has rightly held that defendant has proved the adverse possession. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 15. It is not in dispute that, plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and rectification of revenue entries. In the said suit, the defendant has taken contention that, he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. He has also filed a suit in O.S.No.135/2004 for declaration and injunction on the basis of adverse possession. The Court below clubbed both the matters and recorded evidences of the parties and decided the issues. 16. In the said suit, the defendant has taken contention that, he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. He has also filed a suit in O.S.No.135/2004 for declaration and injunction on the basis of adverse possession. The Court below clubbed both the matters and recorded evidences of the parties and decided the issues. 16. To decide the plea of adverse possession the court has to consider the following ingredients for declaration that parties are perfected their title by way of adverse possession. (a) On what date he came into possession, (b) What was the nature of his possession, (c) Whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) How long his possession has continued, and (e) His possession was open and undisturbed. 17. This Court in the case of Basawanthrao since deceased by his Lrs /vs/ Rajkumar reported in ILR 2009 KAR 1099, as stated supra has held that, “A party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is “nec vi, nec clam, nec precario”, that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show, (a) On what date he came into possession, (b) What was the nature of his possession, (c) Whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) How long his possession has continued, and (e) His possession was open and undisturbed. It is only on proof of all these ingredients the case of adverse possession to said to have been established. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour, since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession”. 18. In the present case, the Court below has framed only issue regarding adverse possession as Issue No.2 “Whether defendant proves that, he perfected his title by way of adverse possession over the suit property?”. 19. The trial Court has given findings in Para No.35 of the judgment in respect of the adverse possession, which reads as under: Para No.35. 18. In the present case, the Court below has framed only issue regarding adverse possession as Issue No.2 “Whether defendant proves that, he perfected his title by way of adverse possession over the suit property?”. 19. The trial Court has given findings in Para No.35 of the judgment in respect of the adverse possession, which reads as under: Para No.35. Right from the inception of earlier round of litigation the defendants father has been contending that he is in possession of the suit property under an invalid sale deed of the year 1945. The defendant herein is also contending that he is in possession of the suit property as absolute owner thereof, after the death of his father. The PW.3 has admitted that, “It is true that everybody in the village are aware that the defendant Maharudrappa is the owner in possession of the suit property. The revenue entries in respect of the suit property has been continuously entered in the name of the defendant’s father and the defendant. In spite of the decree for rectification of records the plaintiffs have not taken steps to get the revenue entries rectified. All these circumstances would cumulatively indicate that the defendant has exhibited adverse animus and has been in continuous, uninterrupted possession over the suit property to the knowledge of all including the plaintiffs even after the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court as per Ex.P.6 dated 26.05.1972. An ordinary prudent man under the facts and circumstances of the present case would act upon the supposition that the defendant has proved his plea of adverse possession over the suit property. In view of the above discussion, the following conclusions are reached: (1) The defendant has proved his plea of adverse possession. Hence, Issue No.2 in O.S.No.15 of 2005 and Additional Issue No.1 in O.S.No.135 of 2004 are held in the Affirmative. (2) The plaintiffs have failed to prove that they were in lawful possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit. Hence, the Additional Issue No.2 is held in the Negative. (3) Since, Issue No.2 in O.S.No.15 of 2005 and Additional Issue No.1 in O.S.No.135 of 2004 are held in the affirmative, the suit in O.S.No.15 of 2005 for declaration of title is barred by limitation. Hence, the Additional Issue No.2 is held in the Negative. (3) Since, Issue No.2 in O.S.No.15 of 2005 and Additional Issue No.1 in O.S.No.135 of 2004 are held in the affirmative, the suit in O.S.No.15 of 2005 for declaration of title is barred by limitation. Hence, Additional Issue No.1 in O.S.No.15 of 2005 is held in the Negative and Additional Issue No.4 in O.S.No.15 of 2005 is held in the Affirmative. 20. The First Appellate Court has given findings in respect of adverse possession in Para No.18 which reads as under :- Para No.18 : - So after perusal of all the oral as well as documentary evidence submitted by both the parties the plaintiffs have failed to prove that, the defendant’s father had handed over the physical possession of the suit property in the month of June 1972. Even after perusal all these documents they clearly discloses that the plaintiffs have not taken any execution proceedings for executing the decrees in the earlier round of litigation and also they clearly indicates that the defendants continued in possession of the suit property despites of the decrees in the earlier round of litigation. So, the plaintiffs have kept mum in respect of their rights under the decrees under the earlier round off litigation for more than 32 years and now they have filed the present suit which is hit by law of limitation. So, after perusal of the entire oral and as well as documentary evidence on both the sides it clearly goes to show that the defendant is in continues in interrupted possession over the suit property to the knowledge of all including the plaintiffs even after the judgment and decree as per Ex.P.6 and thereby has proved his plea adverse possession over the suit property. So, the trial Court has rightly evaluated the oral as well as documentary evidence submitted by both the parties and passed its judgment and decree in accordance with provisions of law. So, looking from the material available on records, it is crystal clear that, the appellants have not at all proved what ever the grounds urged in the appeal. So, there is no necessity of interfering into the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. So, looking from the material available on records, it is crystal clear that, the appellants have not at all proved what ever the grounds urged in the appeal. So, there is no necessity of interfering into the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. So, the trial Court after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence submitted by both of parties has passed its judgment and decree in accordance with the provisions of law. So, the appeal preferred by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, without much discussion I hold point No.1 in the Negative. 21. Both the courts below have not properly considered ingredients of adverse possession. There is no any findings recorded by the courts below in respect of the following ingredients, (a) On what date he came into possession, (b) What was the nature of his possession, (c) Whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) How long his possession has continued, and (e) His possession was open and undisturbed. Therefore, matter required for reconsideration. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case the substantial question of law raised for consideration is answered in the Negative. 22. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.121/2011 is setaside. Matter is remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration, after giving an opportunity to both the parties for adducing additional evidence if necessary. 23. Since, the matter is very old and to save the time, the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 05.01.2019. The trial Court is directed to dispose off the matter preferably within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.