Section 23 of the Limitation Act applies to continuing breaches or wrongs, and in such cases, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or wrong continues.

1. Second Appeal No. 92 of 1950 is brought on behalf of defendant No. 15 against a judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Sasaram, dated the 14th of December, 1949. Second Appeal No. 91 of 1950 is presented on behalf of defendants 1, 4 and 10 against the same judgment. In Second Appeal No. 91 of 1950 there is a cross-objection filed on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents.

2. The suit was brought under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, by the plaintiffs in their representative capacity. The case of the plaintiffs was that plots Nos. .50, 91 and 156 are village chaurs, plots Nos. 34 and 150 were used as ahars and plots 139, 141 and 143 were used as grazing fields by the villagers. It was also claimed that on plot No. 143 there was a Brahmasthan and on plots 139 and 141 there was a Gobardhan Asthan. It was alleged that the defendants in conspiracy with each other had taken possession of these plots and cultivated crops thereon.

The plaintiffs also claimed that all the plots in dispute were recorded as gairmazrua-am in the survey record-of rights. Defendants 1, 4 and 10 contested the suit on the ground that the lands were not gairmazrua-am and that they were in possession of these lands for more than 12 years and that they had acquired title by adverse possession. Defendant No. 15 made a similar claim with regard to plots 139, 141 and 143. The trial Court found upon these rival contentions that defendants 1, 4 and 10 had established their title by adverse possession to portions of plots 34, 150 and 143.

The trial Court also found that defendant No. 15 had failed to prove adverse possession with regard to any portion of the disputed land. On appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate Court has found that defendants 1, 4 and 10 had proved adverse possession with regard to a portion of plot No. 143 and the Munsif was wrong in holding that defendants 1, 4 and 10 had proved adverse possession as regards any portion of plots 34 and 150. As regards defendant No. 15, the lower appellate Court took the view that no adverse possession had been proved with regard to any portion of plots 139, 141 and 143.

3. On behalf of the appellants in both the appeals the argument was advanced that Article 142 of the Limitation Act applies to the case and there was no finding by the lower Courts that the plaintiffs had proved possession and dispossession within 12 years of the institution of the suit. It was, therefore, argued that the appeals should be remanded to the lower appellate court for a finding whether the plaintiffs had established psssession within the period of 12 years prescribed by article 142 of the Limitation Act.

We do not accept this contention as correct. In- our opinion, Article 142 of the Limitation Act has no application to the case. Article 142 only applies to the case of a plaintiff who sues for possession of immoveable property when the plaintiff was in possession of the property, but has been dispossessed or has discontinued the possession. In the present case the allegation of the plaintiffs is that the plots in dispute are gairmazrua-am plots and some of the disputed plots, like plots 50, 91 and 156 are village pathways. It was also alleged that plots 34 and 150 are used as ahars for irrigation of fields and plots 139, 141 arid 143 were used for grazing cattle.

It was also alleged that plots 139 and 141 were recorded as Gobardhan Asthan and plot No. 143 as Brahmasthan and the villagers assembled on these plots for worship of the deities. The plaintiffs prayed for a declaration of their right in the gairmazrua-am lands and for removal of the encroachment made by the defendants and for restoration of the lands to their original condition and also for an injunction restraining the defendants from committing any encroachment or nuisance. It was pleaded by the defendants in their written statement that they had been coming in possession of the lands for 15 to 25 years and had ac