M.P.VARMA, J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff-appellants against the judgement of reversal of the trial court by the first appellate court. The only question canvassed in this appeal is as regards the law relating to onus. In other words, whether on the facts and in the circumstances arising out of the pleadings and proof in the case, the onus did lay on the defendants to establish their case of adverse possession, if at all.

2. Brief facts of the case, as put forward, by the plaintiff-appellants are that in the suit laid, by virtue of the registered sale-deed dated 15-11-1962 (vide Ext.5) executed by Sunaina Devi, who had claimed to have acquired title by virtue of an oral settlement from her father Jagdambi Sahai, the admitted landlord of the suit property, got a valid title. The plaintiffs on being dispossessed filed the suit for declaration of title and also for delivery of possession.

3. On the other hand, the defendants claimed the suit land by virtue of settlement from the same said landlord through a Hukumnama dated 21-3-1950 and payment of rental from that very date to the then landlord and also to the State Government thereafter. They also contended that the