The period of limitation of 12 years in case of a suit on the basis of a title under Art. 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not commence from the date of the purchase of the property by the purchaser from the Government but from the date when the possession of the occupant becomes adverse.

( 1 ) THIS Regular First appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dt. July 25, 1985 passed by the court of Shri O. P. Dwivedi, Additional District Judge, Delhi, thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of possession and also for mesne profits amounting to Rs. 5,400. 00 against the appellants/defendants.

( 2 ) SHRI Shyam Surider Seth, plaintiff (who is respondent in this appeal) filed a suit No. 491 of 1984 against the present appellants (defendants in suit) for recovery of possession of the portion of property bearing No. 1/1553- 1554, forming part of property No. 1/1553- 55 and 1551-52 (Part) (New), Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi as shown in red colour in the plan and for recovery of Rs. 5,400. 00 on account of use and occupation charges/mesne profits.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent is the owner of property bearing No. 1/1553-551/2 and 1551-52 (Part) (New) Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The respondent purchased the property in public auction held on 20-11-1962 as he was the highest bidder. The sale certificate with respect to the said property was issued by the Managing Officer, Department of Rehabilitation, Government of India, New Delhi in exercise of its power under S. 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) on Mar. 31, 1981 and the same was duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Delhi According to plaintiff/respondent, the appellants/defendants are unauthorised occupants in portion of the property bearing No. 1/1553-1554 forming part of the aforesaid property. The appellants failed to deliver the vacant possession of the property to respondent. Defendants are also liable to pay mesne profits for use and occupation. The cause of action, according to the plaint, arose in favour of respondent on Mar. 31, 1981 when the certificate of sale was issued in favour of respondent.

( 4 ) THE appellants/defendants filed their written statement and raised various preliminary objections. The appellants alleged that plaintiff/respondent had no locus standi to file the present suit as plaintiff was neither the owner nor purchaser of the aforesaid properties. It was further alleged by,the appellants that plaintiff has no cause of action and the suit was not maintainable against the appellants as they were the lawful owners and occupants of the property in suit in their own rights as they were in occupation since the year 1950. It was specifically stated by the appellants that as they were in actual physical possession continuously for more than the statutory period of 12 years, thus they had become the owner of the property in question by adverse possession. Defendants also alleged that the suit was barred by limitation.

( 5 ) ON the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

"1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property in dispute ? 2. Whether the defendants have been in occupation of suit property for a period of more than 12 years ? If so, have they perfected their title by adverse possession ? 3. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction 4. Whether the suit is time barred 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any mesne profits. If so, at what rate and what amount ? 6. Relief. "

( 6 ) LEARNED Additional District Judge, Delhi dealt at length with the evidence led by the parties and after discussing the same the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Learned Additional District Judge decided Issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and held that plaintiff , is the owner of the property in suit, as has been shown in the plan Ext. Public Witness 1/2. Learned Additional District Judge decided Issue No. 2 against the present appellants and held that though the appellants had been in occupation of the disputed portion for a period of more than 12 years but they had not perfected their title by adverse possession. Issue No. 3 was decided agai