( 1 ) SINCE common questions of law and facts arise, the two appeals are disposed of by a common judgment as in the courts beiow. The unsuccessful plaintiff/appellant laid the two suits for declaration of title to and possession of the plaint schedule properties against the two sets of defendants. The trial Court decreed the suits, but on appeals they were reversed and the suits stood dismissed. Thus the second appeals.

( 2 ) THE material facts, in OS 162/ 67 from which S A No 770/81 arises, are sufficient to set out in a short compass. The appellant had purchased the properties in question under Exs A 21 and A-22 registered sale-deeds dated April 5, 1967. It is his case that his vendors have inducted the respondents predeceesors in interest into possession as licencees and they continued to he as such till date of suits. His repeated requests for delivery of possession of the lands were met with refusal asserting title in themselves. Thus he laid the suits on August 25, 1967. The respondents resisted the suits and the first defendant filed the wrtten statement adopted bv the other defendants, contending inter alia that the plnint schedule property is a low-lying land with ditches and trenches his father had filled them up and levelled fie land about 32 years prior to the data of the suit by incurring considerable expense. He constructed a thatched hut therein. During his life time, he had been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of that land in his own right as an owner and was paying the taxes to the Muncipality. His father died about 7 or 8 years prior to the date of suit and thereafter, he, his mother and other hours succeeded him and have been living in it after paying the taxes, in their own right as absolute owners. The appellant s vendor never questioned the right of other his father or of the respondents, but acqiuesced to their absolute possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in their own right; thereby they have perfected their title by advarse possession. There by not only the vendors of the appellant lost tittle but the appellant too did not acquire any right, title or interest in the plaint scandle property under the sales they also disputed about the identity of the land,

( 3 ) THOUGH the respondents disputed the identity of tho lands, both the courts concurrently held that its identity has been established and the respondent s producessors-iii-title iuui come into possession in the yeai 1915 ever since they have been in possession and enjoyment of the phinl schedule properties. But the trial Court held that it is permissive possession; thereby they did not acquire title by adverse possession and accordingly decreed the suits. The appellate court held that they have "come into possession in summer, 1945 on their own accord and enjoyed the site as owners", in their own right after paying taxes to the municipality till the Municipality waived taxes and thereby they have perfected their title by adverse possession. Accordingly, the suits have been dismissed.

( 4 ) SRI Anantha Babu, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower appellate court called upon his counterpart not Jo argue on the question of adverse possession but confine to the question of title and identity of the land. Yet, the lower appellate Court considered the question of adverse possession denying the right to argue on the point. He sought for either remitting the matter for reconsideration or to call for a finding, lam unable to accede to this contention. It is now settled law that the Court has to look into the statement contained in the judgment as to what was argued and decided by the Court below. The subsequent assertions of the parties or the affidavits filed by the Counsel as to what had transpired in the Court during the course of hearing, cannot be looked into, considering the case law in that regard, this Court in Reddi Ramaiah vs. S Lakshmana (1) 198-3 (2) APLJ 424 held that either the