1. The dispute in this appeal pertains to 24.5 cents of land in respect of which a litigation had commenced about 29 years ago.

2. The appellant had filed a suit for declaration, injunction and possession in respect of 1.46 cents of land being OS No. 645 of 1970. Thereafter, the defendant in the said suit filed OS No. 3 of 1971 against the appellant herein. The said suit was also for declaration, injunction and possession in respect of about 1.60 cents of land including therein 24.5 cents of land with which we are concerned in the present case.

3. Both the suits were tried together. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that insofar as 24.5 cents of land is concerned, which alone is the subject matter of this appeal, the respondents were in possession of the said 24.5 cents of land but they had not perfected the title by adverse possession inasmuch as there was no evidence to show that their possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed and that it continued for a period of 12 years. It seems that partial relief was granted to both the sides by the Trial Court but insofar as this parcel of land of 24.5 cents is concerned the claim of title to the same by the respondents on the basis of adverse possession was not accepted.

4. The lower appellate court, on two appeals being filed against the common judgment of the Trial Court, came to the conclusion that in respect of the parcel of land in dispute, the respondents herein had been in possession for more than 12 years. The lower appellate court however, observed that it had not been established by positive evidence that such possession of the disputed property was hostile to the real owner and in denial of his title. In this connection he noted that the respondents herein, in the suit OS No. 3 of 1971 which was filed had not prayed for declaration of title in respect of this land on the ground of prescription by adverse possession.

5. In second appeal the High Court observed that inasmuch as the lower appellate court had found that the respondents herein had been in possession of this parcel of land for a period of over 12 years, therefore, "assumption of the courts below that there is no evidence of an open, hostile and adverse possession is based on misapprehension of the legal principles". The High Court noted that the demolition of the wall which had existed on the land in question was an important piece of evidence indicative of the intention of the parties. In view thereof the only inference possible was that the possession of the respondents satisfied the requirements of an adverse possession. The findings of the Trial Court and the lower appellate court were reversed by the High Court.

6. It appears to us that in second appeal the High Court was in error in examining the evidence and then reversing the finding of the Trial Court in the lower appellate court by holding that the possession of the respondents satisfied the requirements of adverse possession. Both the Trial Court and the lower appellate court had, in no uncertain terms, come to the conclusion that the respondents had failed to establish by positive evidence that their possession of the disputed property was hostile to the real owner and in denial of his title. Even if the finding of fact was wrong, in our opinion this finding of fact could not be disturbed specially when the High Court has not come to the conclusion that the same was not perverse nor was based on no evidence. The Trial Court as well as the lower appellate court have discussed the evidence on the record and then had come to the conclusion that the defence in Suit No. 645 of 1970, namely, the respondents herein, had failed in showing that they had perfected their title by adverse possession. It is to be noted that the issue in this regard placed the burden of proof on the respondents and as they had not led evidence to show that they had perfected that title, their plea had to fail.

7. The High Court in our opinion was therefore not justified in reversing the concurrent finding of fact and for this reason this appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the High Court and restoring the order of the lower appellate court. Parties will bear their own costs.