Where a suit for possession of immovable property is based on title and possession and also alleges dispossession or discontinuance of possession in express words or by necessary implication, Article 142 of the Limitation Act would clearly apply to such a case and the plaintiff will not succeed merely by proving title but he must in addition prove that he has been in possession of the property within 12 years of the suit.

I. N. MODI, J.

( 1 ) THESE are two cross appeals arising out of the judgment of the Civil Judge, churu, dated 21-4-1953, in a suit for possession of certain land, and we have also before us the cross objection filed by defendant Nathmal and his three brothers. Appeal No. 28 of 1953 was filed by Madanlal plaintiff in this Court, while appeal No. 34 of 1954 was filed originally by defendant Nathmal and others before the district Court and thereafter re-presented to this Court on 15-2-1954. These defendants thereafter filed a cross-objection in this Court in order to avoid the plea of limitation, which might possibly have been raised by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendants had filed their appeal in the wrong court and had presented it in this Court long after the period of limitation had expired, but there is no dispute before us that the cross-objection was filed within one months time of the service of notice of the plaintiffs appeal on these defendants. We proceed to dispose of these matters by this judgment.

( 2 ) THE dispute between the parties relates to two plots of land situate in the town of Churu, --these plots being adjacent to each other. The plaintiffs case briefly put was that his ancestors Rambhagatdas Jokhiram had purchased these two plots in Samwat years 1907 and 1924 and had obtained two separate pattas for each of them. The land purchased in S. 1907 is marked a and that purchased in Samwat 1924 is marked b in the site plan Ex. P-1 produced by the plaintiff along with his plaint. It may be mentioned at once that plot A was admittedly in the possession of defendants respondents Eajranglal and Gulabchand, and plot B of defendant nathmal and his brothers at the date of the suit. According to the plaintiff, he is a resident of village Bisau and has been living in Bombay in connection with his business there, and so he left these plots, and a shop (with which we are not concerned), under the care of Nagarmal Madanchand Chow-dhari whom he had sometime later appointed as his aam mukhtar. The plaintiffs case is that Sheobux rai, father of defendants respondents Nos. 1 and 2, being some sort of relation of nagarmal Madanchad, had obtained from the latter an oral licence to use these plots for purposes of stacking fire-wood and preparing cow-dung calces etc. and he was thus in temporary use of the plots in question though the exact period for which he was in such possession is not disclosed. It is alleged that after some time Sheobuxrai expressed a desire to purchase these plots but the proposal did not materialize because the plaintiff had asked for a higher price than what Sheobuxrai was prepared to offer and this annoyed sheobuxrai, and so, it is said that he entered into a conspiracy with defendants nathmal and his brothers on the one hand and defendants Bajranglal and his brother Gulabchand on the other, and put Nathmal and others in possession of plot B and Bajranglal and Gulabchand of plot A, and it is further alleged that seeobuxrai did so because defendants Nathmal and his brothers were his close relations and Bajranglal and Gulabchand were the Munims of defendants Nathmal and others. The plaintiffs case further was that as the original pattas had somehow been lost and were missing, he applied in Churu Tahsil for new pattas some time in 1945, but his prayer was opposed by Sheobuxrai as also Nathmal and his brothers and bajranglal and Gulabchand as a result of which by an order of the Tehsildar dated 27-4-1951, he was directed to have his right established in a civil court. Consequently, the plaintiff instituted this suit in the court of the Civil Judge, churu, on 20-10-1951, in which he has valued these plots as Rs. 7000/ -. The other defendants Ratilal and others are relations of the plaintiff and were impleaded merely as pro forma defendants. Defendant Sheobuxrai allowed the suit to proceed ex parte against himself, and the two sets of contesting defendants resisted the suit. It is unnecess