JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from an appellate decree made by a single Judge of this Court, under Section 12(2), Oudh Courts Act. The facts of the case are sufficiently set out in the judgments of the lower Courts and it is not necessary to repeat them in detail. Suffice it to say that the appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a house in the town of Bilgram, district Hardoi. The plaintiffs' claim was decreed by the learned Munsif of Bilgram, but the decree of the trial Court was reversed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Hardoi on the ground of limitation. It appears that the learned Munsif was of opinion that the suit was governed by Article 144 of Schedule 1, Lim. Act, though he did not say so in so many words in his judgment. The defendant had denied the plaintiff's title, had claimed title in himself, and had set up adverse possession. The learned Munsif gave his finding against the defendant on these points. He found that the plaintiff's title was made out and that defendant failed to establish his adverse possession as alleged by him. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge agreed with the finding of the learned Munsif as to plaintiff's' title and the absence of title in the defendant. He did not go into the question of the adverse possession of the defendant as he was of opinion that the suit was governed by Article 142 of Schedule 1, Lim. Act, and that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their possession within 12 years of the suit.

2. The plaintiff's appeal was allowed by Kisch, J., on 25th August 1932. The learned Judge agreed with the view taken by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge that the suit was governed by Article 142 of Schedule 1, Lim. Act; but he held that the plaintiffs had retained constructive possession of the house at any rate up to 8th July 1919, (i.e. within 12 years before the date of the suit, 17th February 1931). The defendant has appealed now challenging the finding of Kisch, J. as to the plaintiff's constructive possession. We have examined the record and heard the learned Counsel on both sides at some length. In our opinion there is no substance in this appeal.

3. The question of limitation is the only question which has been discussed at the hearing of this appeal. Before discussing the questions of law involved we think it proper to determine the question of adverse possession set up by the defendant in this case. We have already observed that the learned Munsif decided the question against the defendant but the learned Additional Subordinate Judge gave no finding on that question. We have examined the evidence. In our opinion the evidence produced by the defendant to establish his adverse possession is quite worthless and must be rejected. In our opinion the learned Munsif was perfectly right in deciding the question against the defendant. We agree with the learned Munsif that the defendant has failed to establish the alleged adverse possession. Now the point is this: Both the lower Courts have found that the plaintiffs' title is fully established and the defendant has no valid title. The defendant has also failed to establish the alleged adverse possession. We have carefully examined the pleadings. With all respect to Kisch, J, we find ourselves unable to concur in the view taken by him that the pleadings bring the suit under Article 142 Schedule 1, Lim. Act. In our opinion the suit is governed by Article 144 of Schedule 1, Lim. Act. We were referred in the course of arguments to a number of decided cases.

4. We do not think it will be necessary for us to refer to more than a few of these. In Peria Jeeyangarswami v. Mahomed Esoof Saheb AIR 1925 Mad 834, where a suit was brought by a Dharma-karta of a Devasthanam for possession against alleged lessees, and the lessees set up a title by adverse possession, the 'Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit applying Article 142 of Schedule 1, Lim. Act, and holding that the property belonged to the Devasthanam, but the lease w