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 story of settlement in favour of Sunaina Devi is totally a myth and that she was never inducted in possession of the suit land.

4. The plaintiffs suit being a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs acquired a valid title (vide Ext.5 the sale deed) on the basis of the settlement of the said property with Sunaina Devi on nagadi-rental followed by possession. But the lower appellate court has reversed the findings, by the judgement, under appeal before us. The lower appellate court has, in clear terms, disbelieved the story of oral settlement or that of possession in favour of Sunaina Devi. The lower appellate court has also found that neither the plaintiffs nor their vendor had any title to or possession over the disputed land at any point of time, much less, within 12 years of the suit. Consequently, the plaintiffs neither acquired title nor possession over the land in dispute.

5. I have examined the discussions of the lower appellate court on this question and I must say that I do not find any such infirmity in the findings of the lower appellate court on this point, which may warrant an interference at this stage in second appeal. Having thus found, the suit of the plaintiffs, which was decreed by the trial court, was rightly dismissed by the lower appellate court.

6. In the present appeal Sri Balbhadra Pd. Singh learned counsel for appellants has tried to make out a distinction between the provisions contained in Art.65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and that of the provisions contained in Art.142 of the Limitation Act 1908 which are the corresponding Articles of each other. He has relied on the introduction of the expression "based on title" appearing in Art.65 of the Limitation Act of 1963 which was not found in the earlier corresponding Article of the Limitation Act of 1908. On that basis, learned counsel Sri Balbhadra Pd. Singh has tried to persuade that by virtue of this introduction, the plaintiffs are required only to prove title; and thereby shift the onus on the defendants to establish adverse possession. There seems to be substance in the contention. It may also be noted here that Sri Prem Lall counsel for the defendants does not dispute the position of law as put forward by the appellant.

7. Thus, in view of the contentions raised at the bar on this question, I do hold that under the present Art.65 of the Limitation Act 1963 the plaintiffs have only to prove their title and it is only thereafter, the onus shifts on the defendants to establish the plea of adverse possession. As I have already indicated that there is no infirmity in the findings of the lower appellate court that the plaintiffs have neither acquired any title to nor possession over the disputed land at any point of t