To establish adverse possession, the defendants must prove that their possession was open, continuous, uninterrupted, and hostile to the plaintiff's title.

1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants against whom the plaintiff-respondent s suit was dismissed by the trial Court, but in appeal, the decree passed by it was set aside and his suit for possession of agricultural land measuring 44 kanals 14 marlas was decreed on the basis of the title by the lower appellate Court.

2. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land. According to him, the same was orally mortgaged by him with possession with the defendants for a sum of Rs. 2,000.00 on Dec. 10, 1960. As the defendants did not allow him to redeem the suit land, the present suit for redemption was filed. Later on, amendment of the plaint was sought which was allowed, in appeal, and the plaintiff, in the alternative, claimed possession of the suit land, on the basis of his title. In the written statement, the defendants denied any mortgage having been created in their favour by him. It was alleged that he had desired defendant No. 4 to arrange the marriage of his daughter with Mukhtiar Singh, the sister s son of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The said marriage was arranged accordingly. Thereafter, he expressed his intention to sell the suit land which was agreed to be purchased by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4, for a sum of Rupees 5,000.00 . According to them, the said amount was paid to him, though the sale deed was not executed as the latter represented to the former at that time that he being under taccavi debt, would not be able to get permission from the Tahsil to sell the land, and that since then, they are in possession of the suit land in their own rights as the owners. They further alleged that in any case, they had become owners of the suit land by adverse possession. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :

1. Whether the suit land was mortgaged by the plaintiff with defendants Nos. 1 to 3, as alleged, and if so, under what terms and conditions ?

2. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties, as alleged ?

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ?

4. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ?

5. Whether the suit is barred by time ?

6. Whether defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 have perfected their title to the suit land on account of their adverse possession for more than 12 years ?

7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit, as alleged ?

8. Relief.

Under issue No. 1, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had altogether failed to discharge the onus of proving that the suit land was mortgaged by him, as alleged. All the other issues were decided in his favour and against the defendants. However, in view of the finding under issue No. 1, his suit was dismissed. In appeal, the lower appellate Court, as observed earlier, allowed the amendment of the plaint so as to enable him to claim possession of the suit land on the basis of his title. The parties did not choose to lead any additional evidence after the amendment of the plaint was allowed and were satisfied with the evidence already on the record. However, an additional issue was framed in regard to the alleged improvements made by the defendants on which evidence was led, but that is not material for the purposes of this appeal. The lower appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court under issue No. 1, but its findings under issues Nos. 5 and 6 were reversed and it was held that the defendants had failed to prove that they had perfected their title to the suit land on the basis of their adverse possession thereon for more than twelve years. As a result, the decree of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff s suit was set aside and his suit was decreed on the basis of his title. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants have come up in second appeal to this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently contended that according to the plaintiff himself, the defendant