( 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 afterwar