JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, Rohtagi Mal, for partition of a half share of a house and for possession of that share. The house originally belonged to two brothers, Badri and Shibba. It has been found that Badri was separate from Shibba and his son, the appellant, Deba. The plaintiff purchased the half share claimed by him from Ram Chandar, the son of Badri, on the 14th of January, 1897. He brought the present suit on the 17th of January, 1902. The Court of first instance decreed the claim, and this decree has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. It is not easy to follow the reasoning of the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court. But upon his finding the suit must fail, as the plaintiff was unable to prove that his vendor was in possession within 12 years preceding the date of the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge finds that Badri absconded from the village 22 or 23 years before the institution of the suit. He further finds that Ram Chandar was not in possession of the house but left it shortly after the disappearance of his father, Badri. The plaintiff admittedly never got possession. Now the plaintiff could not succeed in his suit unless he could show that if the suit had been brought by his vendor, the latter would have been entitled to a decree. The learned Subordinate Judge seems to think that because the property was not divided by metes and bounds, the possession of Deba, who, on the learned Judge's own finding, was in exclusive possession, was on behalf of Ram Chandar also. I am unable to agree with this view. It is clear from the learned Judge's own finding that Ram Chandar discontinued possession. Therefore it was for the plaintiff to prove that he had a subsisting title not barred by limitation on the date of the suit, and article 142 of schedule II would apply. This view is supported by the ruling of the Bombay High Court in Kashi Nath v. Shridhar,[1891] I.L.R., 16 Bom., 343. Following that ruling I hold that the onus was on the plaintiff to show that the claim was not barred by limitation, and that his vendor had been in possession within 12 years before the date of the sale to him. Following that ruling I hold that the onus was on the plaintiff to show that the claim was not barred by limitation, and that his vendor had been in possession within 12 years before the date of the sale to him. As has been stated above, the plaintiff's vendor, Ram Chandar, was out of possession. Even if he was a minor during the period that he was out of possession, he was certainly of age when he made the sale in favour of the plaintiff, and he had attained majority more than three years before the date of the present suit. Therefore, if Earn Chandar had brought the suit, he could not have succeeded in it and no more can the plaintiff, the vendee from him. In my judgment the claim was clearly barred by limitation and ought to have been dismissed. I accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs in all Courts.