QADIR BUX Vs. RAMCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned single Judge of this Court hearing this second appeal framed the following question and referred it to a Division Bench:--

(2.) IT was noticed by the Division Bench that there was apparent conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court as to how the aforesaid ques tion be answered and, therefore, it re ferred the same for the consideration of this Full Bench.

(3.) IN the circumstances of the case it has become very important as to which Article of the First Schedule to the Limi tation Act would apply. In case Art. 144 applies, the burden of proof would lie on the defendant to establish adverse pro prietary possession of more than twelve years. No such proof was furnished and, therefore, the suit could be decreed. On the other hand, if Art. 142 applies, there can be no doubt that the lower appellate Court was fully justified in dismissing the suit.