JUDGMENT : This appeal came to be admitted by framing the following substantial question of law: “Whether the impugned judgment and decree are perverse for not considering the material evidence on record?” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents. 3. The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit in O.S.No.340/2004 against the appellant (defendant) seeking declaration that they are the owners of the schedule property and also sought possession of the same. 4. The respondents purchased the schedule property on the basis of sale deed (Ex.P1) dated 19.12.1966. The respondents(plaintiffs) pleaded that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and one Gangamma, the mother of appellant(defendant) was residing as a tenant under the father of the respondent namely R.C. Bhadraiah on a rent of Rs.10/-per month and the tenancy was oral. The said Bhadraiah was collecting the rent of suit schedule property and after his death, mother of respondents namely Chudamuniyamma was collecting the rent and after her death, the respondents (plaintiffs) are collecting the rent. The appellant (defendant) subsequently refused to pay rent and on the basis of fraudulent entry in the revenue records, she claims that she is the owner of suit schedule property. 5. The appellant (defendant) in her written statement contended that she is in possession of suit schedule property since 12 years from 1974 with the knowledge of father of respondents (plaintiffs) and thereafter to the knowledge of the respondents (plaintiffs) continuously from 1974. As such, she claims the title of suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. She pleaded that she entered into suit schedule property and at that time, there was dilapidated tiles roof structure and she got it repaired to make it fit for dwelling and thereafter put up another structure of hollow bricks. 6. Respondent No.4 –Jaya Prakash has been examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The appellant (defendant) came to be examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D31 and she also examined one Tulasiram as DW.2. 7. The Court at first instance taking into consideration the contrary stand taken by the appellant/defendant that she claiming the property based on the allotment of the said property in her mother’s name has held that the appellant/defendant has failed to prove her adverse possession over the suit schedule property and decreed the suit of the respondents (plaintiffs). 8. 7. The Court at first instance taking into consideration the contrary stand taken by the appellant/defendant that she claiming the property based on the allotment of the said property in her mother’s name has held that the appellant/defendant has failed to prove her adverse possession over the suit schedule property and decreed the suit of the respondents (plaintiffs). 8. The appellant/defendant challenged the said decree in RA.No.24/2007 which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 21.12.2013 by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District sitting at Anekal. There are concurrent findings by both the Courts. The appellant (defendant) has challenged both judgments and decrees in this second appeal. 9. The second appeal came to be admitted on the substantial question of law as noted above. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Court at first instance and the Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the material evidence on record. He contends that the suit schedule property as per panchayath records is standing in the name of appellant (defendant) and she obtained license and constructed building over it and she also examined Adyaksha of panchayat as DW.2 who is stated to have granted the funds under Indira Yojana Scheme to the appellant/defendant. He contends that conclusion arrived at by both the Courts is perverse and they have not considered the material on record. 11. The counsel for respondent argued that the appellant (defendant) has taken the defence of adverse possession but in her evidence she claims that the title over the property by virtue of allotment of suit schedule property to her mother by the Government. The defence of the appellant (defendant) and her evidence are contrary. The Trial Court taking note that she has not produced any document to establish that the said suit schedule property is allotted to her mother by the Government and as there are contrary evidence by her as against her defence of adverse possession. Both the Courts have considered the material evidence on record and have granted decree in favour of respondents (plaintiffs). There is a concurrent finding and there are no grounds to challenge the concurrent finding. 12. Respondents (plaintiffs) claims that the suit schedule property is based on sale deed dated 19.12.1966 at Ex.P1. The said sale deed is a registered sale deed in favour of father of respondents (plaintiffs) namely late R.C.Bhadraiah. There is a concurrent finding and there are no grounds to challenge the concurrent finding. 12. Respondents (plaintiffs) claims that the suit schedule property is based on sale deed dated 19.12.1966 at Ex.P1. The said sale deed is a registered sale deed in favour of father of respondents (plaintiffs) namely late R.C.Bhadraiah. Respondents (plaintiffs) pleaded that Gangamma, the mother of the appellant (defendant) is a tenant under the father of respondents (plaintiffs) on a rent of Rs.10/-per month in the said suit schedule property and this appellant (defendant) who is her daughter subsequently did not pay the rent and claimed the property and disputed the title of respondents (plaintiffs). Hence, the respondents (plaintiffs) have filed the suit. The appellant (defendant) has not taken up the defence that the suit schedule property belongs to her by virtue of grant by the government in the name of her mother Gangamma. The appellant (defendant) has taken the defence of adverse possession. The appellant (defendant) though examined as PW.1 in her cross examination has stated that the suit schedule property was granted to her mother by the Government and she is in possession of the said property. To that effect, the said evidence of DW.1 is contrary to the defence taken at the evidence stage. The appellant (defendant) did not produce any documents to show that her mother has been granted the said property by the Government. The documents produced by the appellant (defendant) in Exs.D1 to D4 are pertaining to the property standing in her name in the panchayath records, Ex.D5 is the tax paid receipt, Exs.D9 to 15 are electricity bills, Ex.D16 is the license and Ex.D24 is the agreement of Rajiv Gandhi Scheme and other documents. The appellant (defendant) has not produced any documents to show that the suit schedule property is allotted to her mother by the Government. 13. The very claim of the appellant (defendant) is that the property is allotted to her mother by the Government and she is claiming the title to that property by virtue of said allotment, which destroys her defence taken in the written statement. In the written statement, she has taken up the defence of adverse possession. As she has taken the defence of adverse possession, she has admitted the title of the respondents (plaintiffs) over the suit schedule property. In the written statement, she has taken up the defence of adverse possession. As she has taken the defence of adverse possession, she has admitted the title of the respondents (plaintiffs) over the suit schedule property. To claim the property by adverse possession, the appellant (defendant) has to first admit the title of the respondents (plaintiffs) and secondly to prove his or her possession for the statutory period of 12 years and the possession is adverse to the owner of the property i.e. animus. 14. This Court in the case of Danappa Revappa Kolli vs Gurupadappa Mallappa Pattanashetti reported in ILR 1990 KAR 610 has held as under: “xxxx apart from actual and continuous possession which are among other ingredients of adverse possession there should be necessary animus on the part of the person who intends to perfect his title by adverse possession. 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 xxxx” 15. The suit schedule property is standing in the name of the appellant (defendant) in panchayath records, she obtained license and constructed a shed in the suit schedule property, her possession cannot at all be adverse possession because it lacks necessary animus for perfecting title by adverse possession. Therefore, both the Courts after considering the material evidence on records, have passed the judgment and decree, decreeing the suit of the respondents (plaintiffs). There is no perversity in the reasoning of both the Courts. Hence, the substantial question of law is answered in negative. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs.