JUDGMENT N.K.Sudhindrarao, J. - The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.56/2014 dated 10.02.2016, wherein the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title and for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the schedule property came to be dismissed. He is in appeal. 2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties are addressed in accordance with their rankings before the trial Court. 3. The substance of the plaint is: that the plaintif f is the natural brother of defendant. The plaintiff was given in adoption to one late Channavva Parappa Jabin in the year 1966. The said Channavva Parappa Jabin was the owner in possession of the schedule property and by virtue of adoption by Channavva Parappa Jabin and succession, plaintiff became the owner of the suit schedule property in lawful possession and enjoyment. The defendant has no right. However, he got his name entered in the revenue records pertaining schedule property. The plaintiff never handed over the schedule property to the defendant nor entrusted him of any responsibi l ity. But it was only behind the back of the plaintiff, the defendant got the revenue entries pertaining the suit schedule property. The plaintiff further claims defendant made use of the revenue entries for wrong purposes on the basis of which even avai led loan of Rs.7,00,000/-. On 07.01.2014, plaintiff made appl ication to the Vi l lage Accountant to delete the name of the defendant from the revenue records. However, the Vil lage Accountant issued endorsement-Ex.P8, but did not the change the entry, the plaintiff was intimated to agitate the matter before the competent authority. 4. The defendant appeared before the Court and denied the claim of plaintiff over the schedule property and contended that suit is barred by l imitation; plaintiff is not in actual possession. The Court fee paid is not proper and that the defendant is in possession of the property and he has been cultivating the same since 1972. The defendant has been exercising al l rights in respect of the schedule property, he had also mortgaged the schedule property in favour of UCO Bank. Further has raised a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from Vijaya Bank by mortgaging the schedule property. He also contends that plaintiff surrendered the schedule property to defendant only in order to come out of the drastic provisions of ceiling. Further has raised a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from Vijaya Bank by mortgaging the schedule property. He also contends that plaintiff surrendered the schedule property to defendant only in order to come out of the drastic provisions of ceiling. He is not entitled for any of the reliefs. Basing on the pleadings of the parties and other materials required, the learned trial Judge framed seven issues and one additional issue. To adjudicate the points in controversy between the parties regarding title, possession, interference surrender of possession, l imitation and payment of Court fee, the learned trial Judge was accommodated with the oral and documentary evidence of the fol lowing in favour of plaintiff and the defendant, i.e., PW1-Jadiyappa Parappa Jabin and got marked documents Exs.P.1 to 12, Ex.P.1-copy of the Adoption Deed, Exs.P.2 and P3 RTCs, Ex.P.4-Mutation extract, Ex.P.5-copy of the mortgage deed, Ex.P.6-Mutation Register,Ex.P.7 letter from Vi l lage Accountant, Ex.P.8-reply from Vil lage Accountant, Ex.P.9- Map, Exs.P.10 and P11 and Ex.P.12-map. So also on behalf of the defendants, DW1- Gurushiddappa, DW2-Mahabaleshwar, DW3- Basappa and DW4-Suryakanth and got marked documents as per Exs.D.1 to D28, i.e., Exs.D1 and D2-RTCs, Ex.D.3-Certif ied copy of the Dentry in 1319, Exs.D.4 to 6-Khata Utars, Ex.D.7-Certif icate from the Vil lage Accountant, Ex.D.8-Notices given by Land Tribunal, Exs.D.11 to D.15-RTCs of schedule property, Ex.D.16- Statement of Accounts in Vi jaya Bank, Exs.D.17 to D.21-Mutation Entries, Ex.D.22- Panchayadast, Ex.D.23-Certified copy of the mortgage deed dated 5.8.1978, Ex.D.24-Form No.7 of Land Tribunal, Exs.D.25 and 26-RTCs, Ex.D.27-Tax paid receipt and Ex.D.28-Varadi given by Vi l lage Accountant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Dinesh M.Kulkarni, would submit that there is no val id transfer of title over the schedule property from plaintiff in favour of the defendant or other. Learned counsel would further submit that the actual possession of the schedule property was not parted with by the plaintiff and that there is no question of the defendant to claim possession of the schedule property. The plaintiff was not aware of the change of entry in the revenue record, it was only just prior to the fi ling of the suit. He made a requisition to the Vi l lage Accountant regarding appearance of the name of the defendant in the revenue records and sought for rectif ication. The plaintiff was not aware of the change of entry in the revenue record, it was only just prior to the fi ling of the suit. He made a requisition to the Vi l lage Accountant regarding appearance of the name of the defendant in the revenue records and sought for rectif ication. The Vil lage Accountant instead of legal ly accommodating the plaintiff has issued endorsement because of which the plaintiff had to f ile this suit. 6. Learned counsel would further submit that the defendant claims adverse possession over the schedule property against the plaintiff. But does not admit the plaintiff to be owner of the property, as such, he contradicts himself. The defendant has not sought for reliefs after pleading adverse possession in respect of the schedule property. Thus, he, himself causes vacuum in his cause. The title of the plaintiff is unfettered and has established unworthiness in the contention of the defendant. 7. Learned counsel Sri S.H.Mitthalkod, submits that it is a model case wherein the suit of the plaintiff is l iable not only for dismissal, but also recognizing title of the defendant. The ingredients of adverse possession are not only pleaded, evidence was adduced and connected documents also were produced. The plaintiff has not rebutted presumption u/s 133 of the Land Revenue Act. He would further submit that the defendant is supported by the legal position which fortify to stand of the defendant. He would further submit that the plaintiff is debarred from recovering possession of the property by virtue of the defendant perfecting the title over the schedule property and to circumvent such disabi lity he has f i led the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was filed on 06.02.2014 for declaration and permanent injunction and it was dismissed on 10.02.2016. There are two items of landed properties in the schedule which are agricultural land in R.S. No. 70/3 to the extent of five acres two guntas and another land bearing R.S. No. 72/1+2 measuring 22 acres 30 guntas. Both lands situated at Pattanhunsi vi l lage, Chabbi Hobl i, Hubbal l i Taluk. 8. The moot point would be as to whether the trial Judge rightly considered the rights of the defendant over the suit schedule property. Further, the plaintiff had forfeited all and every rights over the schedule properties in favour of the defendants. 9. Both lands situated at Pattanhunsi vi l lage, Chabbi Hobl i, Hubbal l i Taluk. 8. The moot point would be as to whether the trial Judge rightly considered the rights of the defendant over the suit schedule property. Further, the plaintiff had forfeited all and every rights over the schedule properties in favour of the defendants. 9. The ownership of the plaintiff at a given point of time, i.e., earlier to 1972, is not disputed and at this stage it is necessary to mention regarding blood relationship of the plaintiff and the defendant. Original ly plaintif f and defendants are the sons of one Veerabhadrappa. In the year 1966 plaintiff was given in adoption to Parappa Jabin by way of Adoption Deed dated 25.05.1966 as per Ex.P.1. Thus, by virtue of the said adoption the plaintiff for al l legal and practical purposes became the son of the adoptive father Parappa Jabin. 10. The plaintiff severed all ties and relationship with his natural fami ly and became the member of the adoptive fami ly. Thus, the plaintiff became third party insofar his natural fami ly was concerned. 11. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff who claims to have inherited the total property including the schedule property and enjoying ownership and possession, the defendant contends that in the year 1972, to be more precisely under Ex.P.4 which is the mutation extract dated 05.08.1978 conf irms the defendant in possession of the schedule property. According to the defendant it became necessary for the plaintiff in order to escape the provisions of ceil ing l imit. This averment of the defendant is vehemently denied by the plaintiff. The other aspects of the matter are the defendant claims right from 1972 ti l l the date of suit he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. He has exercised rights of possession along with acts of possession. He has carried out agriculture on the schedule property. Further, he also claims that he had even mortgaged the schedule property for financial assistance from UCO Bank. He also claims that he borrowed loan of Rs. 7 lakhs from Vi jaya Bank by mortgaging the schedule property. In this connection, it is necessary to mention that insofar as the vacant land is concerned, possession follows ownership unless by way of acts of possession are otherwise. He also claims that he borrowed loan of Rs. 7 lakhs from Vi jaya Bank by mortgaging the schedule property. In this connection, it is necessary to mention that insofar as the vacant land is concerned, possession follows ownership unless by way of acts of possession are otherwise. It requires to be established by the person under whom the possession of the schedule property is claimed. 12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also would submit that in order to claim adverse possession, the defendant has not admitted the ownership. In this connection, the overall and the contextual presentation of the defendant is that he was put in possession of the property by the plaintiff alone and basing on the Varadi / report the revenue record came to be transferred in favour of the defendant. Thus, accordingly the plaintiff is not bound by the entries that are made in his absence or in the proceedings for which he is a party. But, Ex.P.4-mutation extract is not chal lenged by the plaintiff so for. 13. Learned counsel for the plaintiff brought to the notice of the Court wherein the defendant contends that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property wherein the averments of the plaintiffs are denied. It is necessary to mention in the written statement fi led by the defendant he does not contend the ownership over the schedule property on the other hand is prime contention in order to resist the force of the ceil ing l imit, the plaintiff surrendered the possession to the defendant. It is necessary to mention no doubt when the property of one person reaches a next person or if it is given without the intention of transferring the same to the transferee, the ownership shal l not be claimed at that particular point and it has to be by transferee held in trust for transferor, but when the possession of the property is taken back for a long time beyond the period of prescription to enable adverse possession the transferor cannot claim back the same. Induction of the defendant into the possession by the plaintiff cannot be termed to be illegal or obtained by coercive process by the defendant. 14. The prime question would be inducting of the defendant by the plaintiff is said to be acknowledged by Ex.P.4 which is the extract of the mutation entry. Induction of the defendant into the possession by the plaintiff cannot be termed to be illegal or obtained by coercive process by the defendant. 14. The prime question would be inducting of the defendant by the plaintiff is said to be acknowledged by Ex.P.4 which is the extract of the mutation entry. Entering of the possession by the defendant cannot be cal led to be a hosti le or unlawful circumstance. But the fact of the matter is the plaintiff does not admit for a whi le for having entrusted the property in favour of the defendant but as contended by the latter. Ex.P.4 is a mutation extract wherein it is stated that the said land was surrendered by the plaintiff to the defendant and varadi/ report was appl ied in this connection. Whether right or wrong a revenue document came into existence and the same was never chal lenged by the plaintiff. 15. The question of efficacy of the legal effect of the said document confirming the handing over, if it is at one part the other would be as a revenue entry it has a presumptive value as mentioned u/s 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, which is as under: 133. Presumption regarding entries in the records An entry in the Record of Rights and a certif ied copy in the Register of Mutations or in a patta book shal l be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawful ly substituted therefor. The said presumption is not an rebuttable one. On the other hand, it is capable of being rebutted but by only establishing the legal circumstances against it and when there is a l is through acceptable evidence. It was open to the plaintiff to resist and establ ish unrel iabi l ity of that revenue entry, but it did not happen. It is in this connection, Court had a query as to whether the plaintiff has initiated any proceedings, if so, the result about the same. But answer was in the negative. 16. Learned counsel for the plaintif f at length would submit that he was total ly unaware of the existence of the entry in favour of the defendant. The moment he came to know about the same he has fi led the present original suit. 17. But answer was in the negative. 16. Learned counsel for the plaintif f at length would submit that he was total ly unaware of the existence of the entry in favour of the defendant. The moment he came to know about the same he has fi led the present original suit. 17. Learned counsel for defendant would submit that if the entry was false and he came to know at a later stage the physical location or topography of the land of the plaintiff and defendant are situated by the side of each other. The dai ly developments, growing of crops and other agricultural activities are capable of being seen and perceived each other. 18. Thus, in this connection there need not be hide and seek acts by the plaintiff or the defendant, on the other hand the physical possession of the defendant was made known to the plaintiff on dai ly basis but it was not questioned. 19. The next aspect the learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit the ownership of the property has not been transferred by act of the entry by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. The mode for acquiring the ownership are many aspects which legally recognized excluding the one of perfecting title through adverse possession. 20. The title or possession may be original or derived. The original would be one which is acquired for the first time and derivative is the one who has acquired from the existing holder. Ownership also is acquired by prescription or adverse possession. The possession when held continuously without interruption by anybody including the owner held hosti le continuously for the prescribed period and hosti le possession transforms into ownership which is legally termed as title perfected by adverse possession. 21. In other words, when a person holds a property in the form of possession or an imperfect title, the completion of adverse possession makes the imperfect title into a perfect one. 22. The other contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the defendant pleaded adverse possession and there is no claim or counter claim to declare him to be the owner. In this connection, learned counsel for appellant relied upon the fol lowing citations. 1. Avvamma V/s The State of Karnataka and others, (2006) ILR(KAR) 3018 ; 2. H.Lakshmaiah Reddy & Ors. v/s L. VenkateshReddy, (2015) 7 AD(SC) 611 ; 3. In this connection, learned counsel for appellant relied upon the fol lowing citations. 1. Avvamma V/s The State of Karnataka and others, (2006) ILR(KAR) 3018 ; 2. H.Lakshmaiah Reddy & Ors. v/s L. VenkateshReddy, (2015) 7 AD(SC) 611 ; 3. The State Trading Corporat ion of India Ltd. , v/s Vanivilas Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., (2001) 5 KarLJ 570 ; 4. Basavanthrao v/s Rajkumar, (2009) ILR(KAR) 1099 ; 5. P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and ors. V/s Revamma and ors, (2007) AIRSCW 2897 . 6. Smt. Annapurnamma v/s Smt. Sarojamma, (2015) 4 KCCR 3902 . 23. The another contention that was raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that a person claiming to be in adverse possession cannot go in for declaration of title. In other words, an approval by the Court for having prescribed title through adverse possession. However, the legal position recognized by the Apex Court is that even a person can maintain a suit for declaring his title on the basis of adverse possession. 24. The process regarding adverse possession is unique and signif icant. It is a process wherein a person s right of possession satisfying al l the ingredients for the prescribed period transforms into a title and one person need not go for declaration of completion of prescribed period, as such, it is the fulf il lment of the requirement in order to get title. 25. Insofar as possession in order to satisfy the ingredients of animus posudendi, the mental element , the time of entering into possession must be that genuinely the person who is so entering or being inducted must feel that he is entitled to in possession. It is in this connection Ex.P.4 mutation entry or the fact of mutation wherein the plaintiff is claim to have surrendered the property in favour of the defendant. The next one is the corpus possession which is establ ished in respect of suit schedule property. 26. It is in this connection Ex.P.4 mutation entry or the fact of mutation wherein the plaintiff is claim to have surrendered the property in favour of the defendant. The next one is the corpus possession which is establ ished in respect of suit schedule property. 26. The another fact is that the plaintiff does not admit the schedule property to be in possession of the defendant and hence he claims that he has f i led a suit for declaration and injunction with all the efforts of plaintiff and submission the existence of revenue record in the form of Ex.P.4 invariably confers presumption in favour of the defendant and it was for the plaintiff to rebut it to legal course but that did not happen. It was also the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant pleaded adverse possession and kept quiet. As such, there is no prayer for declaring the title. This point we have already discussed in a different context. It is a f inding by the Court that the defendant has perfected title. It is being held in the affirmative. In other words, the Court has a stand that the defendant has perfected the title through adverse possession and the presumptive entry continued in favour of the defendant as the same is not rebutted. 27. In other words, the claim of adverse possession or perfecting of title cannot be in the form of person in possession canvassing that he is in adverse possession ti l l eternity. After satisfying the requirement adverse possession generates title over the subject property as former s product. 28. In the overal l circumstances of the case, the physical possession of the plaintiff is not establ ished. The revenue entries by themselves do not confer the title. However, terms and conditions attached to them continue and the person who claims title over such property fails to provide materials against the revenue entries, the entries would then gain importance. By virtue of legal concept declaring ownership or revenue entries, presumption thereon, physical possession, the bone of contention between the parties, pleadings oral and documentary evidence, legal position appl icable such as that the plaintiff has fai led to establish title and lawful possession. 29. We find that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge do not suffer from inf irmity, irregularity or caused miscarriage of justice. 29. We find that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge do not suffer from inf irmity, irregularity or caused miscarriage of justice. We have no hesitation in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned III Addl. Sr. Civi l Judge, Hubbal l i in O.S. No. 56/2014 dated 10.02.2016. In the result, we proceed to pass the fol lowing order. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.