In a suit for ejectment based on title, the plaintiff must prove her title, even if the defendant fails to prove his title by adverse possession or gift.

( 1 ) THE short point in this revision petition is, whether the order of the lower Court, by which the issues were recast is materially irregular. In order to perspective, the essential facts have to be stated.

( 2 ) O. S. No. 332 of 1966 on the file of the 1st Additional District Munsif, Kovvur was laid by the respondent on foot of her title; and the main relief sought is recovery of possession of a vacant site, which is part of R. S. No108 situate at the village of Kannapuram in West Godavari District. The plaintiff claims to be owner of an extent of Ac. 2-54 cents comprised in the filed bearing the above mentioned survey number. She was granting portions of the land to poor persons at their quest. The grants were being evidenced by the letters which the plaintiff was obtaining from the grantees. It is pleaded by her that at about 15 years ago, the defendant asked for permission to occupy portion of the land, of the extent of 6 cents. The defendant was accordingly allowed to occupy the site as a licensee. Some time later, the defendant craved for leave and lince to occupy a further extent of 15 cents, and this too was granted that the defendant put up a titled house, and execution was taken by her to the user of the lands for the purpose. A notice was issued by her through her advocate on 27-7-1965, to which the decent replied on 23-8-1965 setting out plea that three was a gift by he of the site in question in 1945. The suit for ejectment based on title allowed the defendants notice.

( 3 ) THE defendants pleading by way of answer to the suit asserts that there was an oral gift by the plaintiff in his favour in 1945 and that he was in possession of the land since then in assertion of his own right. It is also urged that he perfected his title by long, continuos and adverse possession.

( 4 ) THE issues in the suit were settled in due course. issue (1) as framed in the first instance reads: "whether the plaintiff has title to the suit sites within the statutory period before the suit?. Issue (2) relates to the question whether the defendant perfected his title to the lands by adverse possession. It is unnessarty to set out the gist of the other two issues framed by the Court.

( 5 ) ON the application of the plaintiff, I. A. No. 716/69 the learned District Munsif, by his order dated 24/12/1969 deleted issue (1) and recast the other issues. It may be mentioned that the main controversy in this revision petition relates tot he deletion of issue (1), Though the other issues had been recast in the manner desired by the plaintiff there is virtually no dispute raised in regard to them.

( 6 ) THE District Munsif expressed the view that there is no need to have a separate issue with regard to the plaintiffs title and possession of the suit property within the statytirty period. Accordingly issue (1) was deleted and the other issues were recast with certain verbal changes to which no exception is taken here.

( 7 ) THE main contention urged before me is that it is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove her title, having regard to the pleadings and that the deletion of Issue (1) is irregular. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that, as the justification pleaded by the defendant for his possession is the alleged gift of the plaintiff and or the acquisition of title by adverse possession the burden is on the defendant to make out affirmatively his title either on foot of gift or on the basis of adverse possession. If the defendant fails to prove the fit of adverse possession says Counsel for the respondent, the plaintiffs action for ejectment ought to be allowed without any further requirement of proof of her title.

( 8 ) IT is not dispute that the gist of the plaintiffs action is that it seeks recovery of possession of immovable property on foot of her title. Art. 64 of the Limitation Act of 1963 relates to suits for possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not no title, whereas Art. 65 applies