Pandrang Row, J.

1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chicacole dated the 19th November 1936 reversing on appeal the decree of the District Munsif of Vizagapatam dated the 10th November, 1932 in O.S. No. 175 of 1932. The reversal was based on a single ground namely, that the plaintiff had failed to show that she or her vendors had possession of the suit property at any time within 12 years prior to the suit and that therefore the suit was barred by limitation. The other points which arose in the case and which had been decided in favour of the plaintiff were not considered by the lower appellate Court and indeed the main complaint by the appellant has been that the judgment of the lower appellate Court does not satisfy the legal requirements of a judgment.

2. This is a case in which by a curious irony, the Subordinate Judge who decided the case was an officer junior in rank to the District Munsif who decided the case as the trial Judge. This is accounted for by the fact that nearly four years elapsed between the decision by the trial Judge and the decision in appeal.

3. The question of possession was dealt with by the trial Court in a careful judgme