Tenancy rights and abandonment principles are critical in establishing a plaintiff's standing in tenancy recovery suits under specific provisions of the Assam Tenancy Act.

1. This is plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of tenancy right and recovery of possession of the land described in schedule 'Ka'attached to the plaint.

2. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint is that the land belonged to defendants Nos. 10 to 20 covered by Kheraj and Nispi Kheraj pattas of village Baragog, Mouza Madartola. District Kamrup. The land was let out to the grand - father of the plaintiff and afterwards it was inherited by plaintiff's father late Mohiram and uncle Holiram. It should be pointed out that the suit was brought by Sri Gunaram Rajbangshi but subsequent to the decision of the court below, he is also dead and his heirs have been brought on the record Gunaram Rajbangshi alleged that he was enjoying the land as a raiyat. In 1352 BS corresponding to 1945 A D the late plaintiff Gunaram Kajbangshi suffered from gastric ulcer and was admitted in the Medical College hospital at Dibrugarh Defendants Nos. 1 to 9 were then possessing the land from Srimati Basanti Priya Rajbangshi on adhi terms. The publicity was given by defendants Nos. 1 to 9 that late plaintiff Gunaram was dead and the wife of Gunaram Rajbangshi was taken away by her father to his own village Bhomlahati. In 1954 Gunaram recovered and joined his service He came home and found that the defendants Nos. 1 to 9 were in possession of the land after demolishing his houses. He asked them to vacate the land but they gave out that they have taken the land from defendant No. 10 Thereafter he approached defendant No. 10 who first assured him that he would deliver possession to him. But on the 26th February 1957. Defendant No. 10 expressed his inability to restore possession and thereafter the present suit was brought for the reliefs already mentioned, on the 26th July, 1957.

3. The defence taken by defendants Nos. 1 to 9 was that as late plaintiff Gunaram fell ill, he abandoned the land and thereafter the land was let out by the landlord to them. The plaintiff lost tenancy right in the land and the defendants under the settlement from the landlord were in possession for more than five years.

4. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal the decision of the trial court has been reversed and in the present appeal by the plaintiff the correctness of the decision of the lower appellate court has been challenged.

5. It should be pointed out that the trial court disposed of the case on the two main issues which are as follows : -
1. Whether plaintiff's tenancy was determined otherwise than in due course of law ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of his tenancy right and possession thereof by ejectment of defendants ?
The lower appellate court has held that the suit is barred by the special rule of limitation under Art.4 of Schedule 1 to the Assam (Temporarily Settled Districts) Tenancy Act. He has further held that the suit is barred by Art.142 of the Limitation Act as the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession within twelve years. He has further held that the plaintiff's tenancy terminated as he abandoned the land, as provided for under S.73(1) of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Districts) Tenancy Act, 1935 . The plaintiff has assailed the findings of the lower appellate court on all these three points.

6. The appellants'contention is that the court below is not right in holding that the suit is barred by Art.142 of the Limitation Act. The court below has found that the plaintiff has been out of possession since 1945 and the suit having been filed in July 1957, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was in possession within 12 years of the suit. Even if the plaintiff was in possessio