JUDGMENT C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. The plaintiff, whose suit for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession of the suit properties has been dismissed by both the subordinate courts, is the appellant in this second appeal. In view of the concurrent findings recorded as against the appellant on the question of possession, it is not necessary for me to go into any great detail regarding the claim based on title and also on the question as to whether the proceedings are -not in any way barred also by action taken under the Survey and Boundaries Act. 2. According to the plaintiff, the property belongs in jenm to him and it forms portion of a land called Thoppiyil Palliai situated between the said land and Bharatha Puzha. It is his further case, that the land was entrusted on lease to one Mundan, father of defendants 5 to 8 under a pattomchit of 1- 12-1930. He took proceedings to evict the said Mundan and the first defendant in these proceedings was also a party to the said suit and he was included as a sublessee under Mundan. As the first defendant contended in those proceedings that he was in possession of the property directly under a grant in his favour from the Government, the present action has been tiled by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the suit properties from defendants ! to 3 who are in actual possession of the properties. The 4th defendant, namely, the State of Madras, was also added as a party because the 4th defendant claimed title to the property on the ground that the title vests in the State and that the necessary grant has been made by them in favour of one Pangassa Menon and later on in the names of defendants 1 to 3. The State also gave particulars of the patta under which the property was being held. The State also took up the plea that virtue of certain proceedings taken under the provisions of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, VIII of 1923, whereby the suit property has been included as poromboke and not having challenged these proceedings, the plaintiff is debarred from claiming any relief in these proceedings. The State also took up the plea that virtue of certain proceedings taken under the provisions of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, VIII of 1923, whereby the suit property has been included as poromboke and not having challenged these proceedings, the plaintiff is debarred from claiming any relief in these proceedings. Defendants 1 to 4 also took up the plea that in any event the plaintiff's suit will have to fail on the ground that he has not been in possession within 12 years of the suit. 3. Several issues were framed by the trial court and the main issues were on the question of title of the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff has proved possession within 12 years of suit. It may be stated that the plaintiff's case was that the suit properly was not only comprised in a lease executed in favour of Mundan, father of defendants 5 to 8 on 1-12-1930 but that the said Mundan was also in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It may also be stated that the case of the plaintiff is that the present first defendant was holding the property as a sublessee of the said Mundan. It was really on this basis that the suit O. S. 66 of 1946 was filed by the plaintiff for evicting his lessee Mundan and the first defendant whom the plaintiff claimed as sublessee from the said Mundan. But the present first defendant promptly repudiated the claim made fay the plaintiff. The first defendant set up a definite case that he was in possession of the property by virtue of the grant by the defendant No. 4 land that from 1904 at least he has been in such uninterrupted possession of the properties. 4. It may be interesting to note that the suit O. S. 66 of 1946 was dismissed as against the present first defendant on the ground that he was holding directly from the Government and that the present plaintiff has no right to claim any reliefs as against him. 5. The present plaintiff wants to take advantage of those proceedings to get over the bar of limitation that is being urged against him by defendant 1 to 4 in these proceedings. 5. The present plaintiff wants to take advantage of those proceedings to get over the bar of limitation that is being urged against him by defendant 1 to 4 in these proceedings. According to him, when the property in the possession of his tenant, he could not claim any possession and it is only, then he found that the present first defendant, who was made a party in O. S. 66. 1946 challenging the title of the plaintiff and setting up a title in the Government, and when that suit was dismissed as against the present first defendant, that he got a cause of action for asking for relief not only on title but also for recovery of possession of the suit property. The contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff not only in the subordinate courts but also before me by Mr. D. Narayanan Potti is also to the same effect, namely, that the defendants must establish that they have completed their title as against the plaintiff by adverse possession. The question will be as . to whether this contention is good in law in the state of the authorities available before me. 6. There was also a question as to whether the river, a portion of the bed of which was claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of title is tidal and nevigable. The trial court appears to have proceeded on the basis that the river at this particular point is non-tidal and non-navigable. But the learned Judge on the basis of the decision of the Privy Council in Maharaja of Pithapuram v Madras Province, AIR 1949 PC 3 , held that it is not necessary that the river should be tidal also before the Government could lay a claim on title to the bed of such a river. The appellate Judge was of the view that notwithstanding the fact that this river was at times not navigable also will not make any difference and the learned Judge was of the view that the bed of such a river in the circumstances of this case should be considered to have been vested in the Government and not in the plaintiff who claims title to the same on the basis of his riparian ownership and the river being not navigable all times of the year. But anyhow that question also does not arise now because, even on the basis that the plaintiff may be said to have established title to the suit property, the suit has to fail on another point, namely, that he has not established possession within 52 years of the suit. Both the courts have also gone into the question as to whether Mundan who is said to be the lessee of the plaintiff and against whom O. S. 66 of 1946 was filed for eviction was in actual possession of the present suit property. On this question the concurrent findings of the two courts are to the effect that though the said item was included in the lease deed, still Mundan neither got possession of the suit property nor was he in such possession of the suit property at the time when he was the lessee. Therefore, the contention of Mr. D. Narayanan Potti that his client will get a right to ask for possession only after the dismissal of the suit O. S. 66 of 1946, even if the proposition is sound in law, will not avail him in view of the findings recorded in these proceedings; that is, his suit O.S. 66 of 1946 was dismissed as against the present first defendant though the plaintiff's case was that he is a sublessee of the suit property holding the same under the lessee Mundan. There is also the further finding in this case to the effect that the defendants have been in possession of the suit property and exercising acts of ownership in respect of the suit item at any rate from the date of Ext. El which is of the year 1 1904. This finding of the trial court has been also accepted by the lower appellate court. Therefore, in this case there are concurrent findings of fact as against the plaintif that not only has he not established possession within 12 years of suit hut that there on testing defendants have established that they have been in possession and exposing acts of ownership at any rate from 1904 over the suit item. Mr. Therefore, in this case there are concurrent findings of fact as against the plaintif that not only has he not established possession within 12 years of suit hut that there on testing defendants have established that they have been in possession and exposing acts of ownership at any rate from 1904 over the suit item. Mr. D. Narayanan Potti contended that in such circumstances it is not necessary for a plaintif to ask for not only a declaration of title but also recovery of possession of the properties on the basis of title, to establish that he has been in possession within 12 years prior to the suit. Mr, Narayanan Potti has not been able to place before me any direct decision of any of the courts including that of this court, for this proposition. On the other hand, the proposition is well established that in such eases when the plaintiff files a suit on title and asks for possession, he cannot succeed on the basis of his title alone unless he is able to establish that be has been in possession within 12 years of the suit also. For this proposition the authority is the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Official Receiver v Govindaraju (AIR 1940 Madras 798) with which I respectfully agree. In view of this Full Bench decision, the proposition of law propounded by Mr. Narayanan Potti that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove possession also in such circumstances is not acceptable to me. In view of these concurrent findings on the question of possession recorded by both the courts as against the appellant, I do not think it necessary to consider whether the view of the two courts that the plaintiff has no title or that the plaintiff's suit is also barred because of proceedings taken under the Madras Act VIII of 1923 is correct or not because even if I am able to accept the contention of Mr. Narayanan Potti that his client has title, which incidentally 1 may also say he cannot have for the reasons given by the two courts, on the question of title atone he cannot succeed unless his client is able to establish possession within 12 years of the suit which, as I have pointed out, his client has not been able to establish. 7. 7. Therefore, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with two sets of costs, one for the State and one for the contesting respondents. No leave.