The central legal point established in the judgment is that under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiff has the onus to show possession and dispossession within twelve years prior to the date of the suit.

1. The 3rd issue was framed on the assumption that the case was governed by Article 144 of the Second Schedule to the Limitation Act of 1877. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge proceeded on this view. He accordingly dealt with the case as if the onus was on the defendant. In this we think he was wrong. The article of the I/imitation Act which applies is Article 142 and the plaintiff must show possession and dispossession within twelve years prior to the date of the institution of the suit. See Gopaul Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Nilmoney Mitter I.L.R. (1884) C. 374 Mohima Chunder Mozoomdar v. Mohesh Chunder Neoghi I.L.R. (1888) C. 473 and Mahammad Amanulla Khan v. Badan Singh I.L.R. (1889) C. 437. We must therefore ask for a finding by the Subordinate Judge on the evidence on record whether the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title was in possession and was dispossessed within twelve years prior to the date of the suit. The Subordinate Judge will of course, in determining this question, take into consideration the nature of the land in dispute.

2. The finding should be submitted within six weeks, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.

3. In compliance with the above order, the District Judge found the issue against the plaintiff.

4. This second appeal coming on for hearing after the return of the above finding, the Court delivered the following

5. On the finding, which we accept, the suit is dismissed with costs throughout.