The inaction of the appellants/plaintiffs in acquiring possession over the suit land for more than 12 years led to the extinguishment of their title, as per the provisions of the Limitation Act.

1. In this second appeal by the appellants/plaintiffs, the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sakti in Civil Appeal No. 24-A of 1998 is under challenge whereby the appeal was dismissed while affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.09.1998 passed in Civil Suit No. 116-A of 95 by Civil Judge Class-II, Sakti, whereby the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit land was dismissed.

2. The appellants/plaintiffs had pleaded that they had purchased land Kh.No. 433/1 area 0.28 acres (hereinafter referred to as the `suit land) situated in village Sakrali, Tahsil Dabhra, from one Sonsai vide registered sale deed 19.01.1967 for a consideration of Rs.300/- and had obtained possession thereof. The name of the appellants/plaintiffs was entered as owners of the suit land in Sansodhan Panji No.650 on 14.09.1968. In 1994, the appellants/plaintiffs learnt that after death of Sonsai the respondents/defendants had got their name mutated over the suit land. The application for mutation filed by the plaintiffs was rejected by the Revenue Court on 30.06.95. The respondents/defendants had unauthorisedly cut the crops of the suit land. On these premises, the plaintiffs prayed for declaration of the title, permanent injunction and mesne profits and in the alternative prayed for the relief of possession if it was held that they were not in possession of the suit land on the date of the suit.

3. The respondents/defendants denied the pleadings in toto while pleading that Sonsai had never executed a sale deed in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs and had never delivered possession thereof. During his lifetime, Sonsai and thereafter the respondents/defendants were in uninterrupted possession of the suit land. Thus, from 19.01.1967 till the date of suit i.e. 17.08.1995, the appellants/plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land, and therefore, not entitled to any relief.

4. The learned trial Judge recorded a finding that the original sale deed Ex.P.3 produced by the plaintiffs was torn and did not show the Khasra Number or area of the suit land, which was purchased by the plaintiffs from Sonsai and was therefore not proved. It was also held that Sonsai was continuously in possession of the suit land and after his death the defendants were in continuous possession thereof as recorded in the revenue records. Thus, since the plaintiffs had failed to prove title over the suit land, they were not entitled to any relief. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.

5. The appellant/plaintiffs preferred first appeal being No.24-A of 98 and moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for filing certified copy of the sale deed 19.01.1967 executed by Sonsai in favour of the plaintiffs and also the certified copy of the Sansodhan Panji wherein the name of appellants/plaintiffs had been mutated. This application was allowed since not opposed. The appellate Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and the certified copy of the sale deed 19.01.1967, held that it was proved that the appellants/plaintiffs had purchased the suit land from Sonsai on 19.01.1967 vide sale deed Ex.P.3. It, however, recorded a finding that there was overwhelming evidence oral as well as documentary to show that at no point of time Sonsai had parted with possession of the suit land and after his death, the respondents/defendants also continued in uninterrupted possession of the same. It was held that although the plaintiffs acquired the title over the suit land by virtue of sale deed dated 19.01.1967, the same was extinguished due to complete inaction of the plaintiffs from 19.01.1967 till 17.08.1995 i.e. the date of filing of the suit. On these premises, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal.

6. Shri A.N.Bhakta, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs argued that the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court regarding acquisition of title over th