1. The only question arising for decision in this Second Appeal is whether the appellant (first defendant) has perfected a title by adverse possession as regards the disputed plot which is delineated in the plan Ext. B. The lower appellate Court agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the possession of the defendant was not adverse to the plaintiff "as both parties were not aware of the exact extent of the property owned by them until 1116" and dealt with the question as follows:

it .......admittedly both parties were not aware of the exact extent of the property in their possession till 1116 when the plaintiff had the properties measured. This fact is clearly admitted in para 8 of the written statement. The properties are adjoining paddy fields. The plaintiff enjoyed the portion to the west of the common bund under the impression that it was 77 cents in extent and the defendant who was in possession of the portion to the east took it that the area of the plot in his possession is only 33 cents. The defendant had no intention to be in possession of any plot in excess of his 33 cents and was not also aware of such possession. This is apparent from Ext. D lease dee