Kumar, J

This is a defendant's regular first appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court which has decreed the suit of the plaintiff and granted the relief of declaration that the plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

3. The subject matter of the suit is land bearing Sy. No. 26 measuring 22 acres, land bearing Sy. No. 27 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas and land bearing Sy. No. 27/Malai measuring I acre 31 guntas situated at Village Kouta, Aurad Taluk in Bidar District. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant who owns 500 acres of land in different villages including the suit land, for family necessity sold the suit land in favour of the grandfather of the plaintiff, namely Appa Rao during the year 1972 for a consideration ofRs.65,000/-. The defendant is a close relative of the plaintiff and his grand father Apparao and therefore, no written document regarding the sale transaction was entered into. However, from Ugadi, in the year 1972 the plaintiff's grandfather Appa Rao is in possession of the suit land. In his capacity as a purchaser he has been paying Land Revenue to the suit lands since 1972-73. When the said Appa Rao became very old, the plaintiff used to assist and cultivate all the suit lands along with his grand father. Appa Rao died in the year 1981. After his death the plaintiff cultivated the suit land in the capacity of a purchaser. The plaintiff's father Shiivrayya also used to assist the plaintiff in cultivation. The grandfather of the plaintiff was in peaceful, uninterrupted, continuous possession of the suit lands in the capacity of a purchaser to the knowledge of the defendant and hostile to his title, till his death. After his death, the plaintiff has cultivated the suit land and he is in peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land, hostile to the title of the defendant and thus the plaintiff has perfected his title by way of adverse possession, being in possession for more than 12 years over the suit lands. On 20.7.1982 the mutation regarding the suit lands was sanctioned in the name of the plaintiff and his name alone is appearing in the cultivator's column. The plaintiff is paying the Land Revenue. In the year 1972 the defendant was involved in a murder case and in order to meet the litigation expenses he raised Rs.65,000/- from the grandfather of the plaintiff. The defendant was convicted in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bidar. However, he was acquitted by the High Court. When the defendant with the assistance of anti social elements obstructed the cultivation of the plaintiff in the suit lands, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. in the year 1988-89. The case was registered in No. RBAIMAG/CR-1/88-89 before the Taluka Magistrate at Aurad. After the enquiry by an order dated 8.7.1991 the Taluka Magistrate concluded that the p1aintiffis in possession of the property. However, the said order came to be set aside by the Sessions Court, Bidar, purely on technical grounds. In the year 1986 a panchanama dated 25.8.1986 was drawn, which shows that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit lands. Therefore, the plaintiff contended that from 1972-73 he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit land, denied the title of the plaintiff and has perfected his title by adverse possession. As there was interference to his possession the plaintiff flied the suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner in possession of the property having perfected his title by adverse possession.

4. The defendants filed a detailed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs. He specifically denied the allegation that he being in need of money for his legal and family necessities has sold the suit lands in favour of the grandfather of the plaintiffs viz., Apparao in the year 1972. He denied h