1. Defendant is the appellant. Plaintiff's suit is for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule propertyfrom the defendant on the strength of title and also on the strength of an alleged lease of the year 1112 under which the defendant is stated to have come into possession of the property. The title as also the lease set up by the plaintiff were denied by the defendant who contended that himself and his tarwad had been in possession of this property in their own title for the past several years and that even if the plaintiff's tarwad had any title to the property, the same has been lost by adverse possession and limitation. After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties the lower Courts have concurrently found that the oral lease set up by the plaintiff is false and that title to the property was with the plaintiffs tarwad and that such title has become vested in the plaintiff. On the strength of such title, the plaintiff was given a decree for recovery of the property. The reason stated for sustaining such a decree is that the defendant has not adduced any satisfactory evidence for conclusively establishing that he has perfected title to the property