In a suit for possession of immovable property based on title, the plaintiff must prove that he has instituted the suit within 12 years from the date of dispossession, and that his title has not been extinguished under Section 27 of the Limitation Act.

BAHARUL ISLAM, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Second Appeal No. 29 of 1970.

2. The plaintiffs brought the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of khas possession in respect of the suit land after evicting the defendants therefrom. The following genealogical table will be helpful in appreciating the facts:

According to the plaintiffs they were the agnates (wrongly written as cognates) of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 (hereinafter called the "defendants"). The plaintiffs and defendants common ingkhol was once covered by patta No. 89/330-I. The land was partitioned into two ingkhols covered by two separate pattas Nos. 89/330-I and 89/446-I. The latter fell to the share of the plaintiffs and the former to the share of the defendants. At the time of the partition in Mutation Case No. 144 of 1939, the eastern half of the land covered by Dag No. 574 was not taken into account. So, the plaintiffs later on instituted Misc. Case No. 178 of 1940-41. Chandrahas Sharma, father of defendants 3 and 4 objected to it, but the Settlement Officer decided that the said eastern half of the land covered by the aforesaid Dag No. 574 fell to the share of the plaintiffs. This land is the suit land. The plaintiffs alleged that they were in exclusive possession of it for a long time. Chandrahas Sarma, during his lifetime preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Settlement Officer before the President, Manipur State Darbar, but it was dismissed. He took another appeal to his Highness the Maharajah of Manipur, but that too was dismissed. In 1964, the plaintiffs filed a petition in the Court of the Settlement Officer, Manipur, for demarcation of the land and the demarcation was allowed; but the defendants forcibly trespassed into the land; and hence the plaintiffs filed the present suit for reliefs above mentioned.

3. The defendants have filed a joint written statement. They have denied that the plaintiffs had any agnatic relation with the defendants. They claimed that the ingkhol under patta No. 89/330-I originally belonged to their predecessor-in-interest. Sajou Sarma, and that neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessor-in-interest had any interest therein. They deny that the plaintiffs were ever in possession of the suit land; they claim that they themselves were in continuous possession thereof. They also deny that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit land by inheritance. In the alternative, they claim that they acquired title to the disputed land by adverse possession.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge, who tried the suit, after trial, held that the plaintiffs had acquired title to the suit land by right of inheritance and that the defendants had not acquired title thereto by adverse possession and thus he decreed the plaintiffs suit.

5. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, held that Sajou Sarma and Baputomba Sarma were the real brothers and as such the plaintiffs were the agnates of the defendants. But, he held that there was no evidence to show that the disputed land was the ancestral land. He, however, held, on the basis of Ext. A/1. which was the decree of a Revenue Court having the force of a Civil Court decree, that the plaintiffs acquired title to the disputed land, but the learned Additional District Judge held that Article 142 of the Limitation Act applied to the case and as the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they brought the suit within 12 years from the date of dispossession, the suit was barred by limitation and hence he dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiffs, then preferred the Second Appeal which was heard and disposed of by a Single Judge. The learned Single Judge held and in our opinion, rightly, that as the suit was filed in 1964, the Limitation Act of 1963 (hereinafter called the Act) would apply; but he has held that not Article 64 (equivalent to Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908) but Article 65 of the Ac