( 1. ) THIS second appeal involves a question regarding limitation, It arises out of a suit for possession brought by the plaintiff-respondent for possession of land situated in the village Titranya bearing Khasra No. 53 measuring 11. 1 acres and assessed to the revenue of Rs. 3-12-9. The suit was based on plaintiffs title and consequent right of the plaintiff to possess the same. There were no allegations as to when and how the defendant came into occupation and by what right. The cause of action was stated to be a demand for possession made by the plaintiff on 11-12-1954 by means of a registered notice and its non-compliance. Plaintiff claimed possession and mesno profits at Rs. 100/- per annum.

( 2. ) THE suit was resisted by the defendants who denied plaintiffs title to the land and asserted their own title and possession since generations. They expressed their ignorance regarding the existence of Patta of that land in plaintiffs name and the circumstances in which it was obtained. They also pleaded adverse possession for a period in excess of 60 or 70 years openly and as of right. This circumstance, according to them, had brought about an end of plaintiffs title, if any, to that land and had created one in themselves.

( 3. ) ON these pleadings issues regarding plaintiffs title and its loss by the plaintiff due to adverse possession by the defendants and their predecessors for over 12 years were framed.

( 4. ) THE trial Court found plaintiffs title to the land in dispute to have been established. It further found that the defendants were in occupation as sub-tenants of the plaintiff. The possession of the defendants was consequently held to be permissive in character and they were therefore held not entitled to claim title of the land by adverse possession. The suit was consequently decreed.

( 5. ) THE appellate court in a brief and superficial consideration of the evidence agreed with the trial court on both these issues and relying upon the decisions reported in AIR 1933 Lah 105, Mt. Raushan Ara Begam v. Mahmud Beg and (S) AIR 1955 Nag 221, Ramchandra v. Vasant, it confirmed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

( 6. ) IN this second appeal Mr. Sanghi for the appellant contends that the plaintiff had nowhere asserted that the defendants were his tenants. The courts below in decreeing the suit on that basis have given effect to a case which the plaintiff had not put forward. On the case set up by the plaintiff, and the facts as they appeared on record it is Article 142 of the Limitation Act which is applicable. The learned counsel relied upon the decisions in 8 Moo Ind App 199, Maharajah Koonwur Nitrasur Singh v. Baboo Nund Loll Singh; AIR 1940 Mad 798 (FB), Official Receiver v. Govindaraju and 18 Ind Cas 17, Dharani Kanta Lahiri v. Gabar Ali Khan, in support of his contentions.

( 7. ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the title of the plaintiff being clear the defendant cannot succeed unless he shows that he had acquired title by adverse possession. In the absence of any indication presumption of tenancy or at any rate permissive character of possession ought to be made.

( 8. ) BEFORE considering the matter on authorities I would consider it necessary, in view of imperfect reference to the factual materials on record, in the judgment of the court below, to mention what facts have been either admitted or proved.

( 9. ) THE plaintiff claims the land on the basis of title based on a Patta issued in his name by the Government as also on the strength of receipt-book regarding the credit of Revenue, in respect of this land, in his name in the Revenue Records. Both the courts below found this to be sufficient evidence of title unless it were displaced by what the defendant established regarding his possession and the character of it. The plaintiffs suit for possession involves the acceptance of the fact that the defendant is in possession. The plaintiff did not state