SRI SHYAM SUNDER PRASAD AND ORS.versusSRI RAJPAL SINGH AND ANR.

                SRI SHYAM SUNDER PRASAD AND ORS.                                A
                                       v.
                      SRI RAJ PAL SINGH AND ANR.

                            NOVEMBER.29, 1994

     [K. RAMASWAMY, N.P. SINGH AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]                        B

     Limitation Act, 1908-Artic/e 142-Suit for declaration of title and
 possession-Burden ofproof-Plaintiff to prove his possession is within 12
 years from date offiling ofsuit and ofhis title to the property.

      The plaintiff filed Title Suit for declaration of title to and C
 possession of a plot as owner. The trial court decreed the suit. The
 appellate court found that though the plaintiff had title and possession
 at one point of time but there was no definite date of dispossession or
 discontinuation of· the plaintiff Schedule property. The plaintiff had
 failed to prove possession· of the suit land within 12 years of the suit D
 when the possession was discontinued. The suit was dismissed therefore
 as barred by limitation under Article 142 of the limitation Act, 1908.
 This appeal had been filed from the judgment of the High Court
 dismissing the second Appeal in limine.

       The question for consideration was on whom the burden of proof E
  lies in a suit based on title and for possession.

      Dismissing the appeal, this Court
                                                 ·'
       HELD : Under ~he old Limitat~on Act, 1908, all suit for possession
  whether based on title or on the ground of previous possession were F
' governed by Article 142 wherein. the plaintiff while in possession was
  dispossessed or disc~ntinued in possession. In view of Article 142, the
  burden, undoubtedly, is o~ the plaintiff to prove that he has title to and
  has been in pos.s~ssion of ~he property within ll years from the date of
  the filing of the suit. It is necessary for the plaintiff, therefore, when the
  suit is laid on the basis of title, to .establish not only that he has title to G
  the property but a.lso he was dispossessed or discontinued his previous
  possession within 12 years on the date of the filing of the suit. When the
  defendant did not come to' the court to establish his adverse possession
  by prescription; the burden of proof does not rest on the defendant.
  The burden, therefore, is always on the plaintiff to prove that he had H
                                        193
     194                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1994) SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A    possession within 12 years from the date of the filing of the suit and he
     has title to the property. [195 A, D, E]

      . CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3298 of
     1984.                                     .

B.       From the Judgment and Order dated 29-8-83 of the Patna High Court
     in A.No. 262of1980..                                                ·

           B.B. Singh for the Appellants.

           The following Order of the Court was delivered :
c         This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High
     Court at Patna iri ·Second Appeal No. 262/90 dated August 29, 1993
     dismissing the Second Appeal in limini. The appellant-plaintiff filed Title
     Suit No. 238/26 of 1962-65 for declaration of title to and possession ·of Plot
     No. 1093 and 1994 as owner and for possession of Plot No. 1095 as ljradar.
     1be trial court decreed the suit, the appellate court found that though the .
D plaintiff had title and possession at one point of time but there is no definite
     date of dispossession or discontinuation of the plaint-schedule property.
     The plaintiff had failed to prove possession of the suit land within 12 years
     of the suit when the possession was discontinued. It is not known as to
     when he came into possession. The suit was, therefore, barred by limitation
E- under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for short 'the old Act'. It was
   · accordingly dismissed.

           Article -142 of the First Schedule and First Division to the old
     Limi~i~n Act, provides that "for possession of immovable property when
    ._the plaintiff, while in possession of the property, has been dispossessed or ,
F has discontinued the possession," the period Of 12 years begins to run from
     the date of dispos~ssion or discontinuation. Article 144 adumbrates that
     "for possession of immovable property or. any interest therein not hereby
     otherwise specially provided for'', the suit shall be laid within 12 years
  · when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.

         Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, 'the new Act')
G
     provides that "for possession of immovable property based on previous
     possession and not on title, when the plaintiff while in possession of the
     property has been dispossessed," the period of limitation of 12 years begins
     to run from the date of dispossession. Article 65 provides that "for
     possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title, the
H    period of limitation of 12 years begins to run when the possession of the
                         S.S. PRASAD v. R.P. SINGH                      195

defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff." Under the old Limitation Act, A
all suits for possession whether based on title or on the ground of previous
possession were governed' by Article 142 wherein the plaintiff while in
possession was dispossessed or discontinued in possession. Where the case
was not one of dispossession of the plaintiff or discontinuance of
possession by him. Article 142 did not apply. Suits based on title alone and
not on possession or discontinuance of possession were governed by Article · B
144 unless they were specifically provided for by some other Articles.
Therefore, for application· of Article 142, the suit is not only on the basis of
title but also for possession.

      The question, therefore, is on whom the burden of proof lies in a suit
based on title and for possession. In view of Article 142 of the old Act, the C
burden, undoubtedly, is on the plaintiff-appellant to prove that he has title
to and has been in possession and he was dispossessed and discontinued his
possession within 12 years from the date of the filing of the suit. It is
necessary for the plaintiff, therefore, when the suit is laid on the basis of
title, to establish not only that he has title to the property but also he was
dispossessed or discontinued his previ~us possession within 12 years on the D
date of the filing of the suit. If the suit is merely based on adverse
possession, then Article 144 gets attracted. The defendant did not come to
the court to establish his adverse possession by prescription. The burden of
proof, therefore, does not rest on him: It is, therefore, for the
plaintiff/appellant to prove that not only he. had title to the plaint schedule
property but also he had possession within 12 years and he was E
dispossessed or discontinued his possession within the period of limitation
prescribed under Article 142. The burden, therefore, is always on him to
prove that he had possession within 12 years from the date of the filing of
the suit and he has title to the property. The burden does not shift on the
defendant. The burden of proof, therefore, has rightly been placed on the F
appellant by the appellate court. We do not find any error of law in the
findings recorded by the appellate court warranting interference, though the
High Court dismissed the appeal in limini. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed but without costs.

A.G.                                                     Appeal dismissed.