S. D. KHARE, J. :- A learned single Judge of this Court hearing this second appeal framed the following question and referred it to a Division Bench:-

"If a plaintiff claims possession against the defendant alleging him to be his tenant and fails to prove the tenancy set up by him, whether in such a case Art. 142 of the Limitation Act will apply or Article 144 of the Limitation Act?"

2. It was noticed by the Division Bench that there was apparent conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court as to how the aforesaid question be answered, and, therefore, it referred the same for the consideration of this Full Bench.

3. The suit giving rise to the second appeal was instituted on the allegations that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff of a small portion of the land in dispute and had, after obtaining his permission and promising to pay rent, built a thatched construction on it six or seven years before the institution of the suit. It was further alleged that the defendant had stopped paying rent to the plaintiff from the year 1950 and when notice was sent to him in the year 1952 he denied the plaintiff's title. Another notice was, therefore, given to the