In a suit for recovery of possession based on title as well as on the assertion of prior possession and subsequent dispossession or discontinuance of possession, Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applies and not Article 144.

SEN, J.

( 1 ) THE questions for the Division Bench are:-" (

1) Whether the ease reported as AIR 1958 Raj 206 and the view taken in 1971 Raj LW 492 require reconsideration regarding the applicability of Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, on account of the legislative changes brought about by Articles 64 and 65 of the limitation Act, 1963? (2) If so, whether in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property based on title as well as on the assertion of prior possession and subsequent dispossession or discontinuance of possession, Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and not Article 142 thereof applied? the subject-matter in litigation is a house situate at Sardarshahr. It belonged to one Ghanshyamdas who died in 1942, leaving behind his widow Mst Narbada and two minor sons Mangilal and Laduram. The suit is For possession based on dispossession.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs sued on the allegation of title in themselves and also alleged that they were in possession but were dispossessed by the defendants. The plaintiffs case was that they were the owners of the house, having purchased the same from Tormal and others by a registered sale-deed dated 6-1-1961; that their vendors on their part had purchased the house from Mst. Narbada widow of Ghanshyamdas by a registered sale-deed dated 17-7-1946, executed by her attorney on her behalf and as guardian of her two minor sons Mangilal and Laduram. According to the plaintiffs, their vendors viz. Tormal and others, were placed in possession of the suit house in pursuance of the sale, but they had not handed over possession of the entire property. At the time of the sale of the house, it was alleged that one Shrilai Asal Saria was residing in the northern portion of the house with the permission of the original vendees i. e. Tormal and others. It was averred that after the sale of the house in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendants Mangilal and Laduram continued to reside there with the permission of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further averred that during the period they had taken possession of the remaining portion of the house, but proceeded to say that during the period they had gone out of Rajasthan on business, the defendants took forcible possession of the portion not previously in their possession. The present suit was filed on 18-9-1963 in the Court of senior Civil Judge, Chum. The plaintiffs alleged that they were dispossessed from the house in suit during their absence sometime in June 1963.

( 3 ) THE defendants in their written statement denied that the plaintiffs or their vendors were owners of the house in dispute or that they were ever placed in possession thereof or that the plaintiffs were dispossessed therefrom in June 1963. as alleged. They also denied that Shrilai Asal Saria was in possession of the northern portion of the house as a licensee of the plaintiffs. They pleaded that they had been in adverse possession for more than 12 years, and that the suit was barred by limitation.

( 4 ) THE court of first instance found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they or their predecessors-in-title viz. Tormal and others, were placed in possession of the suit house i. e. , at any time from 17-4-1946 to 6-1-1961, the date of the alleged sale in their favour, or that they had been wrongfully dispossessed therefrom in June 1963. The court held that the suit being for possession after dispossession fell within Article 142 of Schedule 1 of the limitation Act, 1908. The plaintiffs having failed to prove their possession within 12 years from the date of dispossession, the court dismissed the plaintiffs suit for possession as barred by limitation.

( 5 ) ON appeal, the learned single Judge remitted an issue on title. The finding of the court of first instance thereon was that though the plaintiffs had proved their title they had failed to prove that they or their predecessors-in-title had been in possession of the suit house or their alleged dis-posse