JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by the Defendant in a suit for ejectment. The case for the Plaintiff is that the disputed holding was non-transferable and was held by one Poresh Kotal as tenant. The latter transferred the holding to the Defendants on the 30th December 1894. From that date, the Defendant came into occupation and has ever since paid rent to the officers of the landlord, who have granted him receipts in which he is described as guzratdar. On the 14th April 1910, the Plaintiff instituted this suit to eject the Defendant on the allegation that it was only in 1908 that he became aware of the purchase by the Defendant. The Court of first instance held that the suit was clearly barred by limitation inasmuch as the Defendant had been in occupation for more than 12 years, and that it was immaterial that the Plaintiff became aware of the transfer in his favour by the original tenant quite recently. On appeal the District Judge has reversed that decision. He has held that the claim is not barred by limitation as the Defendant is not shown to have been in occupation as transferee to the knowledge of the Plaintiff for more than 12 years before suit. In our opinion this view cannot possibly be maintained. It was pointed out by this Court in the case of Probhabati Dassi v. Tiabatunnessa Choudhurani (1) 17 C.W.N. 1088(1913), that a Plaintiff suing in ejectment a purchaser of a non-transferable occupancy holding cannot succeed, unless he makes out a case under sec. 18 of the Indian Limitation Act, where his right to possession accrued long before 12 years of the commencement of the suit. Here the Defendant has been openly in possession of the land ever since his purchase. It has not been suggested that circumstances exist such as would attract the operation of sec. 18 of the Limitation Act. The Plaintiff has consequently to make his choice of one of two possible alternatives; either the Defendant has held as tenant or has been in adverse possession as trespasser for a longer time than the statutory period; in either view, he is protected from ejectment. 2. The result is that this appeal is allowed, and the decree of the District Judge set aside. The Defendant has expressed his readiness to acknowledge the Plaintiff as his landlord and to pay him rent. 2. The result is that this appeal is allowed, and the decree of the District Judge set aside. The Defendant has expressed his readiness to acknowledge the Plaintiff as his landlord and to pay him rent. We accordingly dismiss the claim for ejectment, but give the Plaintiff a declaration that the Defendant holds as his tenant. The Plaintiff must pay the Defendant his costs in all the Courts.