A party cannot tack on the possession of his predecessor-in-title to his own to perfect title by adverse possession unless this is part of his case.

This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in T. S. No. 310 of 1952 before the Munsiff of Manipur, against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Manipur in Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1955 by which he reversed the decision of the Munsiff in the said suit.

2. The appellant brought the suit against the two respondents for a declaration of his title over the suit land. His case was that he purchased the land from one Nongthombam Komol Singh, the deceased husband of the second respondent about 15 years before suit, that ever since then he has been in possession of the said land adversely and as of right, that respondent 1 asserting title to the land filed a Rent Suit No. 42 of 1951 against him before the Munsiff as if the appellant was his tenant and it had become necessary for him to have his title declared against respondent 1. Respondent 1 contested the suit saying that he became entitled to the suit land by purchase in Sale Case No. 355 of 1935-36 on 6-1-35, that the appellant cannot have any manner of right in the suit land, that the appellant got possession of it as tenant in 1949 and that he has no other right in the said land except as tenant. Respondent 2 supported the case of the appellant.

3. The appellant produced the sale deed executed in his favour by one Komol Singh as Ext. 1. It was dated 28-4-1941. The suit having been filed in 1952, the plaint allegation of purchase 15 years before suit was thus found to be incorrect. It may be mentioned here that the suit land along with other lands originally belonged to one Amor Singh, the younger brother of Komol Singh, who executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant. Amor Singh died issueless and Komol Singh was said to have inherited the properties of Amor Singh. But it would appear that there was a revenue sale of Amor Singhs land in Revenue Case No. 355 of 1935-36 and that in the said sale one Pancham Singh became the purchaser of the suit land and other lands on 6-1-35. The appellant admitted the fact of this revenue sale and purchase by Pancham Singh. There was some dispute in the lower Courts as to whether this Pancham Singh was respondent 1 or the son of respondent 1. Respondent 1 claimed to be the person who purchased the land in the revenue sale. But the learned Munsiff held that the said Pancham Singh was respondent 1s son. That question is not now very material as the appellant admits that the said Pancham Singh is dead and respondent 1 became entitled to the lands of the said Pancham Singh. Thus respondent 1 is now the person interested in disputing the appellants title.

4. The appellants case as set up in the plaint was that he purchased the suit land from Komol Singh and that he has been in possession of the suit land for 15 years before suit and that he has acquired title by adverse possession. He set up such a case, because he knew that the land had been sold in revenue sale long before the sale deed - Ext. 1 in his favour by Komol Singh and that Komol Singh did not therefore have any right or interest in the said land at the time he executed the sale deed - Ext. 1 on 28-4-41. So, the appellant knew that he cannot rest his case on Ext. 1, but only on his having acquired title by adverse possession for 15 years before suit. But Ext. 1 being dated 28-4-41 and the suit having been filed on 16-12-52, 12 years period had not elapsed for the appellant to claim having perfected title by adverse possession. So, what the appellant attempted to prove at the time of the trial was that there was an oral sale by Komol Singh to him some 15 years before suit, but that the sale deed Ext. 1 was executed only on 28-4-41 and that he was thus actually in possession of the land for 15 years before suit. The learned Munsiff did not accept this case of the appellant evidently because there was no pleading to the effect that there was such an oral sale and that the appellant had obtained possession on the strength of such oral sale. The learned Munsiff therefore held