Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies only to suits based on possessory title.

( 1 ) ALTHOUGH I wavered much while listening to the arguments, on further deliberation I am quite clear that this appeal should be allowed. The problem is the old one, whether Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to a suit for possession of immovable property when the plaintiff s claim is founded on title And, whether the fact that the defendant is in possession raises the inference that the plaintiff was dispossessed, if it be not established that the possession of the defendant had a consensual origin. A glance at any commentary on the Limitation Act shows how much these questions have vexed the courts, and the mass of conflicting and confusing case-law they have produced.

( 2 ). The relevant facts in the present case arc few and simple. In 1933, the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited purchased a large area of land measuring 52,902 sq. yds. According to the Mills, a small parcel comprising 2584 sq. ft. of this land was leased to one Murari Lal in June 1947. It is alleged that Murari Lal sub-leased a portion to Bhagwan Das and the rest to Ganga Charan. In July 1948, Murari Lal died and his heirs were recognised as tenants. Sometime afterwards the lease was terminated, and the Mills instituted a suit for eviction on 3rd June 1955. The heirs of Murari Lal admitted the claim and a decree was passed against them. Bhagwan Das initially contested the suit, but later did not participate in the proceedings. It is said that, whilst the suit was pending, he delivered possession of his portion of the land to Ganga Charan, and, therefore, disappeared from the scene. Ganga Charan was the only one who fought the suit to the end. He denied that the land had been leased to Murari Lal and that he was a sub-lessee. On the contrary, he maintained, that he and his ancestors had been in adverse possession of the land for more than 20 years. The suit, is against Bhagwan Dass and Ganga Charan. was dismissed on 27th November 1958 on the ground that it had not been proved that the land in dispute was over let out to Murari Lal . An appeal was also dismissed on 23rd February 1961.

( 3 ) THEN, on 12th June 1961, the Mills filed the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen, A decree for recovery of possession and mesne profits was sought against Ganga Charan. The basis of the suit was that the Mills had title to the land. Again, Ganga Charan pleaded adverse possession. But, subsequently a statement was made on his behalf expressly abandoning this plea. Both the courts below have found it proved that the title to the land vests in the Mills. Yet, they have dismissed the suit as being barred by time under Article 142 as the Mills had not been able to establish their possession within 12 years prior to the institution of the suit.

( 4 ) IT is agreed by both sides that since the suit was instituted in 1961 it is governed by the Limitation Act of 1908 which was in force at that time. Even otherwise, section 31 of the Limitation Act of 1963 is clear on the point. Counsel for the Mills conceded that if Article 142 applied the judgments of the courts below had to be upheld as there were concurrent findings of fact that the Mills had failed to establish possession within the statutory period. Likewise, counsel for Ganga Charan conceded that if Article 144 applied the suit had to be decreed, for the plea of adverse possession had been given up. "thus, the only question is, which of those two Articles in the Act of 1908 is the right one to apply?

( 5 ) ARTICLE 142 applies to a suit for possession of immovable property when the plaintiff, while in possession of the property, has been dispossessed or has discontinued the possession . The period of limitation is 12 years from the date of the dispossession or discontinuance . Article 144 is residuary. It applies to suits for possession of immovable property or any interest therein not hereby otherwise specifically provided for . The period of limitation is again 12 ye