JUDGMENT Jack, J. - This appeal has arisen out of a suit for declaration of the Plaintiffs' title to the disputed land and for khas possession of the same after removal of a building thereon. The only point raised in this appeal concerns limitation. It is urged that the Courts below have wrongly held that the suit is not barred by limitation. On the question of limitation the learned Additional Subordinate Judge merely says: As the Banvari is being held for about eight or ten years on the disputed land, the snit is not barred by limitation. 2. For the Appellants, it is pointed out that the evidence is that, in fact, the Bunvari is being held on the land in suit for much more than 8 or 10 years inasmuch as defence witness No. 1 gives evidence that the Burwari was held on the land for 14 or 15 years, defence witness No. 2, for 16 or 17 years and defence witness No. 4, an officer of the zemindar, says that Kali Puja is being celebrated there for the last 22 years. It is, therefore, suggested that the learned Judge must have relied upon the evidence given before the Local Commissioner who was directed to ascertain whether the disputed land was included within the patta of the Plaintiffs, or within C. S. plot No. 3654 or 3664. There is also the evidence of the settlement record which shows the land as part of the road and in which there is no reference to any Banvari puja being held on this land or on the neighbouring land. 3. It is urged that this evidence recorded by the Commissioner was not objected to in the Trial Court. But in fact it was not put in by the Plaintiffs. Then it is urged that even if it is held that the Puja was being held there, it was being held with the permission of the landlord. But the landlord was apparently siding with the Defendants and the fact that the Banvari was being held there with the permission of the landlord, would not prevent the suit from being barred by limitation, because in that case the possession of the landlord, who is denying the title of the Plaintiffs, would not be the pos-session of the Plaintiffs. But the landlord was apparently siding with the Defendants and the fact that the Banvari was being held there with the permission of the landlord, would not prevent the suit from being barred by limitation, because in that case the possession of the landlord, who is denying the title of the Plaintiffs, would not be the pos-session of the Plaintiffs. The statements of the Plaintiffs' vendor before the Commissioner certainly do not seem to be admissible in evidence, inasmuch as the Commissioner was not appointed for the purpose of examining witnesses but merely for the purpose of relaying the settlement boundaries and for determining whether the land in suit was within the Plaintiffs' lease. As there was no other evidence apparently on the record going to show that the land was being used as Barwaritala only for 8 or 10 years and not for a longer period, it seems clear that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge must have acted upon the inadmissible evidence before the Commissioner in coming to the conclusion that the Banvari was only being held there for 8 or 10 years. 4. In the circumstances, I think the best course to adopt is to send back the case for a re-hearing of the appeal and the cross-objection, leaving out of account the statements which were made before the Commissioner at the local enquiry. The case is, accordingly, sent back to the Court of appeal below for coming to a conclusion on the point of limitation on the evidence on the record. 5. I do not wish that the observations I have made should be taken in consideration in coming to a conclusion as to the length of the Defendants possession. Costs will abide the result.