In a suit for possession, the plaintiff must prove possession within 12 years of the suit, unless the defendant can prove adverse possession.

This is an appeal by the contesting defendant No. 1 Adhikarimayum Brapamohon Sarma, against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge Manipur in C. A- No. 17/ 70/17/70 dated 11-1-1971, by which he decreed the plaintiffs suit reversing the decree of the trial Court.

2. The plaintiffs case was that late R. K. Chandrahas Singh, father of pro forma defendant No. 5, was the original owner of the suit land. He allowed late Ramnath Sarma, the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to live in the suit land as its Manager on condition of delivering half of the produce of the land. Ramnath Sarma used to give half of the crop of the land every year to late R. K. Chandrahas Singh, and after his death which took place about 35 years ago, to his son, pro forma defendant No. 5. After the death of Ramnath Sarma, which took place about 25 years ago, his sons Brajamohon Sarma, defendant No. 1, and Bangsidhari Sarma also used to give half share of the crop raised on the land, every year, to the pro forma defendant No. 5 till 1955. Since 1956 they have refused to pay such share to the pro forma defendant No. 5. At this pro forma defendant No. 5 asked them to vacate the land, but to no effect Thereafter, the pro forma defendant No. 5 sold the suit land to the plaintiff on 23-4-1956 for a consideration of Rs. 800/- under a registered sale deed. When the plaintiff went to take possession over the land, it is alleged, defendant Nos. 1 to 4, who are in possession of the land, did not allow him to do so and denied his title. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit land, and for recovery of possession by evicting the defendants therefrom.

3. The pro forma defendant No. 5, filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 1 to 4, who filed a joint written statement. It was not denied by them that the suit land originally belonged to late R. K. Chandrahas Singh. According to them, late R. K. Chandrahas Singh, made an oral gift of the suit land in favour of late Ramnath Sarma about 41 years ago with delivery of possession and that since then Ramnath Sarma and after his death his sons have all along been in possession of the land by their own right, adversely against R. K. Chandrahas Singh, and his successors-in-interest. They also contested the suit on the ground that pro forma defendant No. 5 alone had no right to sell the land to the plaintiff as R. K. Chandrahas Singh left some other sons besides pro forma defendant No. 5, and that the suit was barred by limitation under Art. 142 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.

4. Upon the pleadings, as many as. 13 issues were framed, including the following issues, which were issues Nos. 5, 10, 11 and 12 respectively :

"5. Is the suit barred by limitation and adverse possession?

X X X X X

10. Was the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest in possession of the suit land within 12 years before the institution of the suit? or Was late Ramnath Sarma and after him were the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 the permissive possessors of the suit land paying half of its produce to late R. K. Chandrahas Singh and after his death to R. K. Angousana Singh till 1955?

11. Was the suit land a joint property of R. K. Lukhoisana Singh, R. K. Angousana Singh and the heirs of late R. K. Gopalsana Singh on 23-4-1956, if so, can the plaintiff sue for recovery of possession of the suit land on the basis of purchase from R. K. Angousana Singh? and

12. Did late Adhikarimayum Ramnath Sarma acquired the suit land by gift from late R. K. Chandrahas Singh?".

5. Eight witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff, and five witnesses on behalf of the defendants were examined in the suit, and a number of documents were also proved. On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Munsiff held in favour of the plaintiff on all the issues except issues Nos. 5 and 10. In deciding these two issues, the learned Munsiff held