Bye-law 36 of the Society's Bye-Laws, which authorized the Managing Committee to empower a person to conduct proceedings on behalf of the Society, was applicable in this case, and the certified copy of the resolution authorizing Babu Ram to file the suits was admissible as prima facie evidence.

G.C.Mital, J.

1. This order will dispose of nine connected appeals namely, Regular Second Appeal Nos. 380 to 382 and 422 of 1975 and Nos. 1446 to 1450 of 1975, as common question arises therein.

2. The Dialpura Bhaika Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., which is a Society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), filed nine separate civil suits for recovery of possession in respect of the agricultural land of the Society against unauthorised occupants. The defendants contested the suits on various pleas. Out of these, in four cases both the Courts below decided all the material issues in favour of the Society and against the defendants and decreed the plaintiff-Societys suits of possession. The defendants have come to this Court by way of Regular Second Appeals Nos. 380 to 382 and 422 of 1975. In the other five cases, both the Courts below held that the suits were not filed by duly authorised person. However, it was found that the defendants possession was illegal. The Society has filed Regular Second Appeals Nos. 1446 to 1450 of 1975 against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, vide which their suits for possession were dismissed.

3. Three points arises for consideration :-

(i) Whether the defendants were in possession as tenants ?

(ii) Whether the suits are time-barred ? and

(iii) Whether Babu Ram was duly authorised to file suits on behalf of the Society ?

In the first instance, the defendants claimed ownership of the land in dispute and, in the alternative, pleaded that they were tenants of the original owners form whom the property came to be vested in the Society and, therefore, they are the tenants of the Society. The defendants failed to prove any contract of tenancy. They also failed to bring any evidence of tenancy on the record by payment of rent and acceptance thereof. The only reliance was placed on some revenue entries wherein they were shown in occupation as tenants-at-will. By now, it is settled that any occupant of agricultural land, other than the owner, is generally entered as tenant-at-will and it is the payment of rent which determines the status of an occupant. In the present case, in the column of rent, entry is made that they are in occupation by virtue of sales in their favour. Therefore, it is clear that it is not a case in which the defendants were in occupation as tenants-at-will but were in possession on the basis of some sales. They have not relied upon any sale deeds. Hence, I am in agreement with the Courts below that the defendants are not proved to be tenants-at-will of the land in dispute.

4 Adverting to the second point, i.e., limitation, a suit by owner for possession is now governed by Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 . The suits could be barred by time only if the defendants had proved that they were in possession for more than 12 years upto the date of filing of the suits and had adverse title to the knowledge of the original owner. In this behalf, no evidence has been led. Mere possession for any number of years cannot be considered to be adverse in terms of Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act.

5. Adverting to the third point, the decision of the lower appellate Court in Regular Second Appeals Nos. 380 to 382 and 422 of 1975 is that Babu Ram, was duly authorised to institute suits on behalf of the Society by virtue of the authority conferred on him by resolution passed by the Managing Committee, which resolution was good in the eye of law. On the other hand, in Regular Second Appeals Nos. 1446 to 1450 of 1975, both the Courts below held that the copy of the resolution, which has been produced on the record by Babu Ram, does not satisfy the requirements of section 36 of the Act read with rule 30 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) inasmuch as it was not proved that the books of accounts were regularly kept by the Society in the cour