JUDGMENT

1. This petition arises out of a suit in which plaintiffs prayed for a declaration to the effect that the land in suit was owned and possessed by them along with defendants 10-20, and the defendants 1-9 had no title or right in it. The trial Court decreed the suit. This decision has been affirmed on appeal. The contesting defendants have come up on revision.

2. The only question that requires determination at this stage is one of limitation. The plea of the contesting defendants that the suit is barred by time not having prevailed in the Courts below, the finding on the question is challenged by this petition. The facts bearing on this question are as follows:

3. Gullu and Qadar, the predecessors-in-interest of defendants 1-9 were the original owners of the land in suit. By mortgage deeds dated 28-6-1882 (Ex. P.W. 8/1), 25-12-1895 (Ex. P.W. 8/2) and 9-10-1899 (Ex. P.W. 8/3), the land in suit was mortgaged along with other land to Bana Ram. The proprietors then sold the equity of redemption in 91 Kanals 18 Marias to the predecessors in-interest of the plaintiffs on 25-6-1900. On 11-7-1900, Bana Ram, the mortgagee, sold his mortgagee rights in 304 Kanals to them. On 3-1-1904, Gullu and Qadar, the original owners, also sold the equity of redemption in 304 Kanals of land to them. On the basis of these title deeds, plaintiffs claimed to be owners and in possession. Their names, however, do not appear in the revenue records. Mutation No. 325 was entered in 1935 in order to give effect to the sales in favour of the plaintiffs. This was rejected on 31-5-1935. In August 1938, Malku son of Qadar, and Allah Bakhsh son of Gullu, applied to the Revenue E.A.C. for the demarcation of 909 Kanals 5 Marias of land in village Mulla Isa. The Khasra numbers comprising 909 Kanals 5 Marias include the land now in dispute. They claimed that they were the co-sharers in the land and that Kazi Obaidullah (father of A. Wahid Plaintiff) the respondent in the proceedings was the owner of adjacent lands. They prayed for demarcation on the ground that boundary pillars had been washed away by the action of the river Indus. The demarcation proceedings were duly carried out. The final order in the proceedings is dated 5-8-1939. It states that the demarcation proceedings have been duly carried out and effect has been given to them.

4. In September 1942, mutation No. 461 in respect of the sales of the land in dispute in favour of the plaintiffs was entered again. It was attested on 5-3-1943. On appeal the Collector directed the rejection of the mutation. A revision petition of the plaintiffs against the order of the Collector was dismissed. It is not disputed at this stage that plaintiffs are in possession of the property in dispute.

5. The contention put forward on behalf of the defendants by their learned Counsel is that the Courts below were not correct in the view that the assertion of title in the demarcation proceedings gave rise to a fresh cause of action on the basis of which the present declaratory suit could have been instituted. He urges that these proceedings do not amount to an attempted ouster and that that is the only basis for a suit for declaration by a person in possession, if there has been a previous denial of title which has not been availed of. He points to the fact that in 1935, a mutation of sale was entered in favour of the plaintiffs. This was rejected on the basis of a denial of title by the defendants. In these circumstances, plaintiffs in order to have a cause of action for the suit must show that defendants have made an attempt to oust them from the property after 1935. A mere denial of plaintiffs' title by the defendants would not amount to such a cause of action as is recognized by law. He has relied on 64 Judicial Record (Vol. I) in the first place. In this case it was held by the learned Judge that a suit for a declaration of title to immovable property by persons in possession as proprietors is not barred if brought with