1. The only point urged before us is one of limitation. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the plaintiffs suit on the ground that Art. 142 of the Limitation Act applied to the case, and the plaintiff not having proved possession within 12 years, his suit was barred. The plaintiff did not allege in the plaint that he was dispossessed by the defendants. He case was that he let defendants into possession under an agreement of tenancy and that they would not give up possession. The defendants denied plaintiffs title and set up title by adverse possession for over 12 years. The District Munsif granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff, but the Subordinate Judge, on appeal, held that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession within 12 years of the suit.

2. Article 142 is applicable only to cases where the plaintiff alleges possession and dispossession in his plaint. Where he sets up a tenancy or license as the basis of the defendants possession the proper article applicable would be Art. 144. If the defendants are able to make out adverse possession for over 12 years, the plaintiffs suit would be barred. Here the learned Subordinate Judge found that the agreement set up was