The plaintiff in O.S.No.20 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsiff Magistrate, Nagari, is the appellant. He filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. He pleaded that he purchased the suit schedule land under a sale deed, dated 20-02-1981 (Ex.A-1) for a consideration of Rs. 1,800/- and thereafter he acquired the possession of the superstructure under an agreement of sale, dated 31-03-1981 (Ex.A-2) for a consideration of Rs. 1,450/-. According to him, five years before the sale of the property, his vendor, P.W.2, had inducted the respondent (defendant) into permissive possession and when the latter was required to hand over the vacant possession of the premises, he declined.

2. The appellant got issued a notice, dated 05-04-1981 (Ex.A-4) calling upon the respondent to deliver the vacant possession. To this, the respondent issued a reply (Ex.A-6) stating inter alia that the suit schedule property was purchased by his brother, about thirty years back from P.W.2 through an oral sale and five years thereafter it was allotted to him in a partition, among the brothers. He has also taken the plea of adverse possession, apart from claiming title in himself. Hence, the appellant filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property.

3. The respondent filed a written statement, virtually, repeating his stand in the reply notice marked as EX.A-6.

4. The trial Court decreed the suit through its judgment, dated 30-09-1988. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed A.S.No.35 of 1990 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal through judgment, dated 02-03-1994.

5. Sri P.V. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the lower appellate Court committed an error in law in treating that the possession of the respondent was become adverse to that of the appellant and his vendor. He contends that whatever be the doubt as to the starting point of possession of the respondent over the suit property, once he has acknowledged the title of P. W.2 for it, and failed to prove any transfer in his favour, the possession ought not to have been treated as adverse. He further submits that even on facts, the plea of adverse possession, taken by the respondent is on a slippery footing. He placed reliance on the judgments rendered by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, which dealt with, the principle of adverse possession.

6. Sri K. Bathi Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the possession of his client over the property was traceable at least from the year 1970 as evidenced by Ex. B-1 and it is clearly evident that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. The learned counsel points out that though P.W.2 was the original owner, the title has passed on to the brother of the respondent about thirty years prior to the filing of the suit, and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondent continues to acknowledge the title of P.W.2.

7. The appellant filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. So far as the first limb of the relief is concerned, there did not exist much of the· controversy. The vendor of the appellant Le., P.W.2, did not dispute the execution of the sale deed (Ex.A-1) for the landed property and the agreement of sale for the superstructure namely EX.A-2. Admittedly, the respondent herein was in possession of the suit schedule property much prior to the sale in favour of the appellant. Inasmuch as recovery of possession is sought on the strength of title, the burden squarely rested upon the respondent to prove that his possession over the property became adverse to the appellant, twelve years prior to the filing of the suit.

8. On his behalf, the appellant examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and filed Exs. A-1 to A-6. The respondent examined D.Ws.1 and2andfiled