JUDGMENT : Sri.Harish H.V., learned counsel for appellant has appeared in-person and Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 has appeared through video conferencing. 2. The unsuccessful plaintiff has filed this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. 3. The short facts of the case are as under: -The land situated at Veeranagenahally village, Kasaba Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk measuring 3.20 guntas in Sy.No.10/21P originally belonged to one Kataiah S/o.Kataiah. He had sold the said land to one Kariyappa S/o.Yarappa, through a registered Sale Deed dated 14.03.1959. Earlier, the survey number of the land was survey No.10 and subsequently, the Authorities concerned have assigned the survey numbers as 10/21 and 10/21p. The land was identified with the boundaries also. After purchase of the property, Kariyappa S/o.Yarrappa became the absolute owner of the property and he was in actual possession and enjoyment of the above said land. The first defendant-Eranna is the brother of the second Defendant -Chikkerappa .The first defendant purchased the suit schedule property measuring 1.30 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 14.05.1964 from the owner –Kariyappa S/o.Yarrappa. Plaintiff averred that he has purchased that entire land in Sy.No.10/21P measuring 03.20 guntas for a valuable consideration of Rs.3000/-under a registered sale deed dated 28.12.1982 from Kariyappa S/o.Yarrappa. He stated that ever since the date of the purchase of the land, he is in continuous peaceful and actual possession and enjoyment of the land openly adversely notoriously hostile to the interest and knowledge of defendants for more than statutory period of limitation i.e.,12 years and therefore, he acquired title to the suit schedule property by adverse possession. It is stated that though defendant No.1 acquired title under the registered sale deed dated 14.05.1964, his right gets extinguished by law of limitation and hence, loses his right, title and possession over the suit schedule property. Contending that defendants have no right over the suit schedule property and at the instance of persons who are not in good relation with plaintiff tried to interfere with his peaceful possession and therefore, he sought the aid of the Court and seeking appropriate reliefs. On service of summons, defendants appeared and filed written statement. They denied the plaint averments. They stated that the entire land bearing Sy.No.10/21 measuring 03 acres 20 guntas was owned by one Kataiah S/o.Kataiah. On service of summons, defendants appeared and filed written statement. They denied the plaint averments. They stated that the entire land bearing Sy.No.10/21 measuring 03 acres 20 guntas was owned by one Kataiah S/o.Kataiah. He had sold the said land to one Kariyappa S/o.Yarappa, through a registered sale deed dated 14.03.1959. Defendant No.1 purchased western half portion under a registered sale deed dated 14.5.1964 and that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property ever since the date of purchase of the land. Defendants contended that Kariyappa had no right to sell the entire 03 acres 20 guntas in favor of plaintiff as he has already parted 1 acre 30 guntas in favor of defendant No.1 and therefore, they sought to urge that the sale deed dated 28.12.1982 is a fraudulent one and does not create any right in favor of plaintiff in respect of western half portion of survey number. They also denied that plaintiff has perfected his title over the suit schedule property by adverse possession. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues: "1. Whether plaintiff prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 28.12.1982? 2. Whether plaintiff proves that defendants have not acted upon registered sale-deed dated 14.05.1964? 3. Whether plaintiff proves that he has perfected his title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession? 4. Whether the alleged cause of action is proved? 5. What decree or order?" To substantiate the claim, plaintiff himself was examined as PW-1 and two witnesses were examined as PWs-2 and 3 and produced twenty-four documents which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-24. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.2 was examined as DW-1 and three witnesses were examined as DWs-2 to 4 and produced eight documents which were marked as Exs.D-1 to D-8 and D-8(a). On the trial of the action, the suit came to be dismissed. On appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was confirmed. Hence, this regular second appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC is filed. 4. Sri.Harish H.V., learned counsel submitted that judgment and decree of the trial Court is unsustainable in law. Hence, the same liable to be set aside. On appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was confirmed. Hence, this regular second appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC is filed. 4. Sri.Harish H.V., learned counsel submitted that judgment and decree of the trial Court is unsustainable in law. Hence, the same liable to be set aside. Next, he submitted that Ex.P-2 is the registered Sale deed and there is a mention of handing over of possession of the suit schedule property. He submitted that subsequent to the sale deed, the mutation entries are accepted and revenue entries reflect the name of plaintiff over land in dispute. The RTC extracts at Exs. P-3 to P-9, tax paid receipts at Exs.P-10 to P-13 and other revenue records discloses the name of plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the said revenue documents have presumptive value under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the same is ignored by both the Courts below. A further submission was made that the entire documents at Exs.P-2 to P-34 discloses the possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The evidence of witnesses i.e., PWs' 2 and 3 is also ignored by the Courts below. The improvements made by plaintiff over the suit schedule property has been admitted by DW-4 in his cross examination. In spite of material evidence on record, the Courts below have dismissed the suit on flimsy grounds. It has been contended that the Courts below have erred in not holding that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, in spite of producing revenue records, tax paid receipts etc. Therefore, he submitted that the approach of the Court below in this regard is bad in law. In the last resort, counsel submitted that both the Courts have not appreciated the plea and the evidence on record regarding adverse possession. Therefore, counsel submitted that this second appeal involves substantial question of law and accordingly, prayed that the appeal may be admitted by framing substantial questions law. In support of his contention with regard to adverse possession, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL AND OTHERS vs. MANJIT KAUR AND OTHERS - (2019) 8 SCC 729 . 5. Per contra, Sri.A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel submitted that Kataiah S/o.Kataiah was the original owner. In support of his contention with regard to adverse possession, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL AND OTHERS vs. MANJIT KAUR AND OTHERS - (2019) 8 SCC 729 . 5. Per contra, Sri.A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel submitted that Kataiah S/o.Kataiah was the original owner. He had sold the said land to one Kariyappa S/o.Yarappa, through a registered sale deed dated 14.03.1959. Defendant No.1 purchased western half portion under a registered sale deed dated 14.5.1964. Defendants are brothers and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property ever since the date of purchase of the land. Next, he submitted that Kariyappa S/o.Yarappa could not have sold the entire property in favor of plaintiff in the year 1982 since Kariyappa S/o.Yarappa, had already sold to an extent of 01 acre 30 guntas of land in his favor defendant No.1 in the year 1964. A further submission was made that documents produced by plaintiff are subsequent to the filing of the suit and therefore, they have no presumptive value as contended by counsel for appellant. Counsel submitted that none of the documents produced by plaintiff would indicate that plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It has been contended that plaintiff has no specific and definite pleading with regard to adverse possession and ouster of defendant No.1 from the suit schedule property. The defendants in their written statement specifically denied and disputed all the plaint averments and in particular plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property with respect of western half portion of the property. Counsel further contended that there is no specific pleading either with regard to ouster of the first defendant or with regard to adverse possession. Lastly, he submitted that both the Courts below in extenso considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and rightly rejected the claim of plaintiff. This regular second appeal does not involve substantial question of law and accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. I have heard the contentions urged on behalf of appellant and respondents and perused the records with care. The facts have been sufficiently stated. This regular second appeal does not involve substantial question of law and accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. I have heard the contentions urged on behalf of appellant and respondents and perused the records with care. The facts have been sufficiently stated. As could be seen from the nature of lis between the parties, plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to suit property which is a land bearing survey number 10/21P measuring 03 acres 20 guntas. Kataiah S/o.Kataiah was the original owner. He had sold the said land to one Kariyappa S/o.Yarappa, through a registered sale deed dated 14.03.1959. Kariyappa S/o.Yarappa sold western half portion of the property under a registered sale deed dated 14.5.1964 in favor of defendant No.1 . Though, Kariyappa S/o.Yarappa, had sold western half portion of the property in favor of first defendant in the year 1964, he alleged to have sold the entire extent of land measuring 03 acres 20 guntas of land in favor of plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 28.12.1982. (Exhibit P-2). The dispute is with regard to possession of western half portion of the land. In support of his case, plaintiff has examined in all three witnesses. He was examined as PW-1. He has stated that though defendant No.1 has purchased the suit schedule property measuring 1-30 guntas under the registered sale deed dated 14-5-1964, neither defendant No.1 nor defendant No.2 have taken possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time. In the cross examination, he denied the suggestion that defendant No.1 has purchased western half portion of the property to an extent of 1.30 guntas. He has deposed that he has purchased the land in the year 1982 and as per M.R.No.2/1982-83 and MR No.7/1987-88 his name came to be entered in the revenue records pertaining to entire extent of land including the suit schedule property. He sought to urge that the revenue entries have a presumptive value. Exhibit D-1 is the registered sale deed dated 14.05.1964. Defendant No.2 examined himself as DW-1. He has deposed that his father is Eranna took possession of the suit property as on the date of entering the sale deed and continued to be possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by cultivating the same. DW-3 is the son of the vendor of plaintiff and defendants. Defendant No.2 examined himself as DW-1. He has deposed that his father is Eranna took possession of the suit property as on the date of entering the sale deed and continued to be possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by cultivating the same. DW-3 is the son of the vendor of plaintiff and defendants. He has deposed that his father has sold 1 acre 30 guntas in favor of defendant No.1 and delivered possession to him in the year 1964. He has further deposed that he was present at the time of sale of property in favor of the first defendant. In fact, a suggestion was made to him that his father has not executed any sale deed but the has denied the same. The trial Court in extenso referred to the documentary evidence on record and found that mere RTC extract will not help plaintiff to prove his possession over the suit scheduled property as the defendants have taken the possession of 01 acre 30 guntas of the land in the year 1964. Just because the pahanies are not entered in the name of defendants, it cannot be held that defendants are not in possession. It is clear from materials on record, that defendant No.1 purchased western half portion under a registered sale deed dated 14.5.1964. Therefore, Kariyappa S/o.Yarappa could not have sold the entire property in favor of plaintiff in the year 1982 since Kariyappa S/o.Yarappa, had already parted to an extent of 01 acre 30 guntas of land in favor of defendant No.1 in the year 1964. In my opinion, plaintiff has failed to establish his claim over the suit schedule property. Therefore, plaintiff cannot claim title over the suit schedule property. The alternative plea of plaintiff that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. Before, I answer the plea and the evidence on record with regard to adverse possession, it is necessary to know the law on the point. In order to perfect title by adverse possession, three inseparable ingredients are necessary, they are: (1) Property, the subject of adverse possession; (2) Corpus possession is (physical possession): and (3) Animus possidendi (intention to exclude the adversary from possession). Adverse possession is a question of fact and in a claim of adverse possession, the title is not disputed; what is alleged is only its extinction. Adverse possession is a question of fact and in a claim of adverse possession, the title is not disputed; what is alleged is only its extinction. A plea of adverse possession being based on facts which have to be raised to that effect, is not necessarily a legal plea. The plea of adverse possession raises a mixed question of law and fact. The Apex Court in Dr. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA VS RAJ KUMARI SHARMA AND OTHERS reported in (1996) 8 SCC 128 , has held that a plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a mixed question of fact and law. A plea must be raised and it must be shown when possession became adverse, so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found. Therefore, a plea must be raised and the prayer clause may not be taken as a substitute for a plea. A person acquires title by adverse possession when he is in continuous, uninterrupted, hostile possession over a period of 12[twelve] years in order to calculate 12 years period there should be a starting point. Therefore, the law mandated that plaintiff who seeks a declaration that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession should specifically plead the date from which his possession becomes adverse to that of defendant. It is from that date if the plaintiff shows continuous, uninterrupted possession for a period of 12 years, then the right of the defendant to the property stands extinguished and plaintiff would acquire by way of adverse possession, In so far as proof of adverse possession is concerned, it is a well settled principle 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 extant 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 position, (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 is said to have been established. It is only on proof of all these ingredients the case of adverse possession is said to have been established. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favor, since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. While arguing the case, Sri.Harish learned counsel submitted that plaintiff has purchased the entire land measuring to an extent of 03 acre 20 guntas in survey number 10/21P in the year 1982 and from the date of purchase, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Counsel vehemently urged that plaintiff has perfected title by adverse possession. In the circumstances, both the Courts below are not justified in rejecting the claim of plaintiff that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. On the other hand, Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel vehemently contended that plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of title to the suit property. Plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property in the year 1982. Counsel stressed on the point that, the vendor, Kariyappa S/o.Yarappa, had already sold the western half portion of the property in favor of defendant No.1 way back in the year 1964 and defendant No.1 is in possession of the property ever since the date of purchase of the land. Counsel was critical in his submission. He submitted that there is no plea regarding dispossessing the first defendant and taking forcible possession of the suit property. In support of his case, plaintiff examined in all three witnesses. He was examined as PW1. He has produced the sale deeds -Exs-P-1 and P-2 . He has also produced the record of rights Exs.P-3 to P-9 to show that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and is cultivating the property. The record of rights pertaining to the suit lands for the period after filing of the suit. It is relevant to note that the suit was instituted on 8th day of December, 2003. All the witnesses have deposed about the sale deed of the suit schedule property on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff has admitted that defendant No.1 has purchased the western portion of the property. Therefore, the entire oral evidence that plaintiff has purchased the entire land including the western half portion has no value in the eye of law. All the witnesses have deposed about the sale deed of the suit schedule property on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff has admitted that defendant No.1 has purchased the western portion of the property. Therefore, the entire oral evidence that plaintiff has purchased the entire land including the western half portion has no value in the eye of law. Ex.D1 is the registered sale deed of the year 1964 whereas plaintiff appears to have purchased the property in the year 1982. It would not prove the case of sale as pleaded by plaintiff. That is precisely the reason why plaintiff based his title on the plea of adverse possession. It is in this background and in the light of the oral and documentary evidence on record, we have to find out whether the plea of adverse possession is established. In the entire plaint it is not pleaded from what time the possession became adverse. On the contrary, the specific case pleaded by plaintiff is that he purchased the property in the year 1982 and continued in possession of the property from the month of January 1983. The case pleaded is one of acquisition of title and he being put in lawful possession by the vendor. The revenue entries of the year 1987 stands in the name of Kariyappa and not in the name of plaintiff. DW-4 has spoken about the possession of the suit land by the defendants. While answering issue No.3, the trial Court held that plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property and hence, plaintiff perfecting his title over suit schedule property by way of adverse possession does not arise. Therefore, the trial Court rejected the contention with regard to the adverse possession. On appeal, the appellate Court while re-appreciating the evidence on record confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. In the entire plaint, it is not pleaded from what time the possession became adverse. In the plaint, there are no specific pleadings when plaintiff dispossessed the first defendant and took forcible possession (ouster of defendant No.1). There is no pleading either with regard to ouster of defendant No.1. There is nothing on record to show that plaintiff was or is in possession of the property. In the plaint, there are no specific pleadings when plaintiff dispossessed the first defendant and took forcible possession (ouster of defendant No.1). There is no pleading either with regard to ouster of defendant No.1. There is nothing on record to show that plaintiff was or is in possession of the property. If plaintiff claims to be in possession as a purchaser and continued to be in possession as a purchaser, it cannot be the starting point of adverse possession at all. The findings of the Court below on the adverse possession is in consonance with the material on record. The trial Court and the first appellate Court rejected the plea of adverse possession on proper appreciation of the materials on record. I do not find any error in the said reasoning of the Courts below. Therefore, the case of adverse possession must necessary fail. 7. Sri.Harish H.V., learned counsel for appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his contention regarding adverse possession. It is true that the Hon'ble Apex Court in RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL AND OTHERS v. MANJIT KAUR AND OTHERS - (2019) 8 SCC 729 , has laid down the law regarding adverse possession and held that the person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person / owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In my considered view, the decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case for the simple reason that plaintiff has failed to establish that he is the possessory owner, and has also failed to establish that he has perfected title by adverse possession. The trial Court in extenso referred to the material evidence on record and dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court has examined the evidence on record and re-appreciated it. I am satisfied that it has been appreciated in the correct perspective. It is perhaps well to observe here that the after the 1976 amendment, the scope of Section 100 of CPC has been drastically curtailed and narrowed down. The First Appellate Court has examined the evidence on record and re-appreciated it. I am satisfied that it has been appreciated in the correct perspective. It is perhaps well to observe here that the after the 1976 amendment, the scope of Section 100 of CPC has been drastically curtailed and narrowed down. The High Court would have jurisdiction of interfering under Section 100 of CPC only in a case where substantial question of law is involved and those questions have been clearly formulated in the memorandum of appeal. No substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal. 8. In the result, I find no merit in the appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed at the stage of admission.