Under the old Limitation Act, 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.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit, the appellate companyrt found that though the plaintiff had title and possession at one point of time but there is numberdefinite date of dispossession or discontinuation of the plaint schedule property.
262/90 dated 29 8 1993 dismissing the Second Appeal in limine.
The suit was, therefore, barred by limitation under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for short the old Act.
Suits based on title alone and number on possession or discontinuance of possession were governed by Article 144 unless they were specifically provided for by some other articles.
The plaintiff had failed to prove possession of the suit land within 12 years of the suit when the possession was discontinued.
Where the case was number one of dispossession of the plaintiff or discontinuance of possession by him, Article 142 did number apply.
238/26 of 1962 65 for declaration of title to and possession of Plots Nos.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court at Patna in Second Appeal No.
1093 and 1094 as owner and for possession of Plot No.
The appellant plaintiff filed Title Suit No.
1095 as Ijradar.
It is number known as to when he came into possession.
