JUDGMENT Gokul Prasad, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a rent free grove and damages. 2. The facts appear to be as follows: Khadim Husain was the original rent-free grantee of a bigha 7 biswas of land. He planted a grove on it and sunk a well. On the 24th of January, 1882, he sold the grove and the well to Ganga Sahai. On the 23rd of February, 1884, Ganga Sahai aforesaid Bold the grove and the well to Allah Bakhsh. Allah Bakhsh was the father of the defendant. On the 30th of June, 1893, Allah Bakhsh aforesaid sold the grove and the well to Nathi Mal, the brother of the plaintiff. By some oversight however the name of Allah Bakhsh continued to be recorded against the grove in dispute in the revenue papers. At the last settlement of the year 1917 the plaintiff applied for correction of the record and entry of his own name. The defendant who is the son of Allah Bakhsh objected. His objection was allowed and the plaintiff now says that on the strength of this decision the defendant has now dispossessed the plaintiff and has cut down ten trees out of the grove; hence the present suit for possession and damages. 3. The defence was (1) that the defendant was the occupancy tenant of this plot and held it rent free. (2) that the transfer by Allah Bakhsh to the plaintiff's brother was never given effect to, and (3) that the defendant and his predecessor-in-title Allah Bakhsh had been in adverse proprietary possession. On these pleadings the parties went to trial. The trial Court found that the property in dispute was a rent-free grove and the defendant or his predecessor-in-title could not acquire occupancy right in it, and that the plaintiff had proved his title and possession. On these findings the learned Judge of that Court decreed the plaintiff's claim. The defendant went up in appeal. The learned District Judge has apparently concurred with the Court of first instance in finding the title to be with the plaintiff. Then he entered into the question of possession and has come to a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession within twelve years. This finding is bad for two reasons. The learned District Judge has apparently concurred with the Court of first instance in finding the title to be with the plaintiff. Then he entered into the question of possession and has come to a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession within twelve years. This finding is bad for two reasons. The first is that the learned Judge seems to think that in a case where the suit is resisted on the ground of acquisition of title by prescription it is for the plaintiff to prove his title within twelve years. That this is not so and it is for the defendant to prove his adverse proprietary title is clear from the cases of Rama v. Arunachalam (1915) 39 Mad. 673= 18 M.L.T. 349= 29 M.L.J. 724= (1915) M.W N. 801= 31 I.C. 98 and Jai Chand Bahadur v. Girear Singh (1919) 41 All. 669= 17 A.L.J. 814= 52 I.C. 366. The second reason why the finding aforesaid cannot be accepted is that the learned District Judge in the course of his judgment says "the habuliats and applications to the Municipal Board on which the plaintiff relies, appear to me to be no proof of possession at all." It is not quite clear what the learned Judge means. They may not be sufficient to prove possession but prima facie counterparts of leases executed by tenants and applications for permission to build put in the Municipal Board are the best possible evidence of possession. They would at least tend to show which were the persons who were in actual possession and on whose behalf they held that possession, and the application would show that at a certain time a certain party alleged himself to be in possession of the property in dispute and asked for permission of the Municipal Board as the person being in possession to make erections on the property with the permission of the Municipal Board. I cannot therefore accept this finding of fact as binding upon me. In order to dispose of this appeal satisfactorily it is necessary for me to have a finding on the following issue: When did the defendant first enter into possession of the property in dispute and when did he set up a title adverse to the plaintiff to the latter's knowledge? No fresh evidence will be taken. In order to dispose of this appeal satisfactorily it is necessary for me to have a finding on the following issue: When did the defendant first enter into possession of the property in dispute and when did he set up a title adverse to the plaintiff to the latter's knowledge? No fresh evidence will be taken. On receipt of the finding the usual ten days will be allowed for objections.