Adverse possession requires the possessor to have necessary animus and deny the true owner's title to the property.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction and alternatively for possession.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property measuring 0-10 guntas which forms part and parcel of the land bearing S. No. 483/2-A which according to the plaintiff extends upto the bund lying in between the land bearing s. No. 483/2-A belonging to the plaintiff and S. No. 482/2 belonging to the defendant. Alternatively he has also pleaded adverse possession also.

( 3 ) AS far as title is concerned, in the light of the measurement made by the Surveyor, both the Courts below have held that the disputed land forms part of S. No. 482/2 and as such the defendant is the owner.

( 4 ) REGARDING adverse possession, both the Courts below have negatived the contention of the plaintiff. One of the reasons given by the lower appellate Court is that it has been the case of the plaintiff that his land extended upto the bund in question and therefore the bund having been in existence for over a period of 30 years, such possession must be held to be adverse possession and title must be held to have been perfected by adverse possession. The lower appellate (Jourt has rejected the plea of adverse possession, because upto the date of measurement of the land, the plaintiff was under the impression that the land bearing S. No. 483/2-A extended upto the bund covering the suit land. Therefore there was no question of adverse possession as there was no necessary animus in the possession of the plaintiff since he himself was not aware of the fact that the suit land did not form part of the land bearing S. No. 483/2-A.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has strongly contended that mere possession is sufficient to perfect his title by adverse possession and there need not be animus on the part of the plaintiff to perfect his title by adverse possession. In support of this plea, learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Kshitish Chandra v Commissioner of Ranchi, AIR 1981 SC 707. In para 8 of the said Judgment, it has been observed that,"all that the law requires is that the possession must be open and without any attempt at concealment. It is not necessary that the possession must be so effective so as to bring it to the specific knowledge of the owner". The Supreme Court was considering the reasoning given by the High court that adverse possession should have been effective and adequate in continuity and in publicity. This reasoning of the High Court was not approved by the Supreme Court and it was in that connection that the aforesaid observation was made. The Supreme Court in that decision, was not called upon to pronounce as to the ingredients of adverse possession. 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 bona fide 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. In the instant case, it is only on the measurement made at the instance of the defendant, the plaintiff came to know that his land bearing S. No. 483/2-A did not extend upto the bund; whereas the land of the defendant extended beyond the bund towards the land of the plaintiff. The Courts below have negatived the plea of adverse possession. This finding is a finding of fact. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the measurement took place only in about the year 1977 or 1978 but the defendant purchased the land in the year 1961 and as such the period from 1961 to 1977 was sufficient to perfect his title by adverse possession. This contention overlooks the fact that the plaintiff was not aware till