This plaintiff's second appeal is from the judgment and de­cree of the District Judge, Manipur, reversing those of the Munsiff. The appellant as plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 13 of 1969, praying inter alia, for a decree of declaration of title in respect of the suit land shown in schedule 'C' to the plaint, stating that the plaintiff was the owner of the land covered by patta No. 100/82 (old) i.e. T. covering plot No. 2/94(old) corresponding to new plot No. 10 as given in schedule 'A' to the plaint; and the defendants were the owners of the land under patta No. 100/47 (old) i.e. T. covering plot No, 2/55 (old) corresponding to new plot No. 8 as shown in schedule 'B' to the plaint. The plaintiff's land was adjacent to the south of the defendants' land and he possessed his land since 10.3.54 after he purchased it from one Abdul Hamid; since deceased, under a registered sale deed. In the year, 1964. a Demarcation Case being Misc. Case No. 461 of 1964 for demarcating the boundaries between the two-plots was decided by the A. S. & S. O. to the effect that the suit land as shown in schedule 'C' to the plaint fell within the defendants plot. The plaintiff's revision petition against the said order was also dismissed. Thus, as decided in the Demarcation Case, a part of the land which the plaintiff continued to occupy since his purchase has been declared to have fallen outside the bo­undary of the land purchased by him ('A' schedule land) and withi0 the boundary of the defendants' land ('B' schedule land) and this portion is the 'C' schedule land and is the suit land.

2. The defendants contested the suit contending that the suit land had never been a part of the plaintiffs land but had been apart of the defendant's land and only a few years back the plaintiff encroached upon it and as such the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation, acquiescence, and waiver.

3. On the pleadings the following issues were settled :

"i. Whether the plaintiff purchased the land under patta No. 100/82 (old) covered by plot No. 2/95 (old) corres­ponding to new plot No. 10/ from Abdul Hamid under a registered deed of sale dated 10.3. 54 at Rs.500/- ?

ii. Whether the plaintiff has right and title over the land under patta No. HO/82 (old) and under plot No. 2/94 t

ii. (A). Whether the suit land described in the plaint sche­dule 'C' falls within the land under patta No. 100/82 covered by plot No. 2/94 (old) ?

iii. Whether the plaintiff has perfected his title over the land marked COX in schedule 'C' by virtue of his possession of it continuously, peaceably, openly and adversely for more than 12 years as his own as alleged by the plaintiff ?

iv. Whether the boundary description of the defendants land is incorrect ?

v. Is the suit barred by waiver and acquiescence ?

vi. Is there any cause of action of the suit ?

vii. Is the suit barred by law of limitation ?

viii. Is the plaintiff entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

4. The learned trial Court held that the plaintiff purchased the land under patta No. 100/82 (old) covering plot No. 2/94 (old) corresponding to plot No. 10 from Abdul Hamid under sale deed Ext. A/1; that the plaintiff had right and title over the aforesaid land; that the suit land (schedule 'C' land) did not fall within the aforesaid land purchased by the plaintiff; that the plaintiff bad been possessing the suit land continuously as his own for the last 15/16 years by constructing out-house though the suit land lay within the Ingkhol of the defendants; that the plaintiff had been possessing the suit land under the impression that it formed a part and parcel of the land purcha­sed by him from Abdul Hamid for the last 15/16 years; that the plaintiff perfected his title over the suit land by adverse possession; and that the suit land fell within the Ingkhol of the defendants and boundary given by the defendants was not correct. The suit, therefore, accordingly decreed declaring the plaintiff's right and title over the suit land.

5. The defendants having appeale

Click Here to Read the rest of this document