Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 142, 144

P L D 1956 Dacca 277         Limitation Act (IX of 1908)   -----Arts. 142 and 144-Dis tinction between-Tenant taking possession of land outside his tenancy and claiming tenancy right--Onus of proof under Art. 142.   The difference between Article 142 and Article 144 of the Limitation Act, is one of onus. In neither case limita tion starts unless some one is in adverse possession. In all cases where the date when limitation starts is known to the plaintiff, that is, cases where he alleges to have been dispos sessed or to have been discontinued possession from a specified date, the onus is on him to show that he was in pos session within twelve years from the date of institution of the suit. Such a case will be governed by Article 142. There is no escape from the latter Article where the plaintiff himself sets up a story of possession or dispossession or discontinu ance of possession. All other cases of adverse possession beyond this limit come under residuary Article 144.   Under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, the onus is no doubt on the plaintiff to prove his possession within the statutory period. But a true owner can prove the factum of his possession by showing that, nobody else is in possession.   'Kameshwar Singh Bahadur v. Faturi Missra and the A I R 1934 Pat. 339 dissented from.   Ishan Chandra Mitter v. Raja Ram Ranjan Chakraburty 2 C L J 125, Raktoo Singh and others v. Sudhr am Ahir and others 8 C L J 557 and Dharani Kanta Lahiri Chowdhuri and another v. Gabar Ali Khan and others 17 C W N 389 (P C) rel.   Debesh Chandra Bhattacharya for Radhikayanjan Guha for Appellant.   Birendra Nath Choudhury for Respondents.       JUDGMENT   IBRAHIM, J.-This appeal has been brought by defendant No. 1. The defendants lost in moth the Courts below. The plaintiffs purchased the suit land on the 10th of Chaitra, 1351 B. S., from two ladies-Anandamayee and Lakshminioni, who had purchased it from Kailash on the 8th of Bhadra, 1333 B. S. The plaintiffs brought the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, alleging that the defendants had dispossessed them on the 28th of…