In a suit for possession based on title, the burden of proving adverse possession lies on the defendants.

This appeal is by the plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Second Subordinate Judge of Manipur in Title Suit No. 31 of 1965.

2. The original plaintiff Angomjambam Ningol Angom Ongbi Pishak Devi brought a suit for declaration of her title to the suit land measuring 1 B. 3 K. 3 L. described in Schedule I of the plaint, for confirmation of possession or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession, in case she failed to prove her possession. Her case, in brief, is that the suit land belonged to her father, Romon Singh, who was the exclusive owner of the land and who was in possession for more than 25 years till his death about 1924. He died leaving four daughters including herself and the three other daughters having died she was the sole heir to the land in question. In April, 1964, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 trespassed over the land and tried to dispossess her. Then she filed the present suit for the reliefs stated above.

3. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers. They have filed a joint written statement. They admit in the written statement that Romon Singh was the owner of the land in suit. Their case is that the patta of Romon Singh was cancelled vide Misc. Case No. 181 of 1917-18 as the land was needed by the Mahrajah for digging the palace moat. They further aver that the suit land was settled with them by the A. D. C. by his order dated 30-9-1963 in Revenue Appeal Case No. 3 of 1962. They further aver, curiously enough, that their father R. K. Digendra Singh had purchased the said patta land for Rs. 50 from Romon Singh and got delivery of possession thereof. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are respectively the Union of India and the State of Manipur. It is difficult to see why they were joined as parties. The plaint does not disclose any cause of action against them. They have, however, filed a joint written statement supporting the case of defendants Nos. 1 and 2.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge, after trial, dismissed the suit.

5. It is admitted by the defendants that Romon Singh, father of Pishak Devi, was the owner of the disputed land. This has further been proved by Ext. A/1. The name of Pishak Devi appeared in Dag Chitha as late as 27-10-1964 on which date her name was removed from the Chitha and the names of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 recorded as disclosed by Exts B/5 and B/6. The burden is heavy, therefore, on the defendants to prove the cancellation of the patta standing in the name of Romon Singh and settlement of the land with them or the sale by Romon to Digendra Singh, the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, as alleged by them.

6. D.W. 2 Jati Singh, is the Supervisor Kanungo, as admitted by the learned counsel of the parties. [After considering the evidence of D.W. 2 regarding the cancellation of the patta of Romon Singh and settlement of the land with the defendants, his Lordship proceeded.] His evidence therefore is absolutely worthless and unreliable. It is concocted evidence.

7. With regard to the alleged sale of the land by Romon Singh to Digendra Singh, the defendants have examined two witnesses, namely, D.Ws. 1 and 3. [After considering the evidence his Lordship proceeded.] With the above sort of evidence, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have miserably failed to prove their case of the purchase of the land by their father. The story is a concocted one. 8. That apart, there is also no evidence on record to prove delivery of possession of the land in suit to Digendra Singh by Romon Singh. In other words, there is no evidence to show the origin of the alleged possession of the suit land, by defendants Nos. 1 and 2.

9. There is also no evidence at all on record to prove settlement of the land with defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The entire defence story in my opinion is a concocted one. The evidence on record suggests that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 with the help of D.W. 2 got the name of Pishak Devi removed from, and their names recorded on, the Chitha on 28-10-1964.

10. The next question that r