Judgment :- 1. The appellant herein is the plaintiff who sued in 1954 for recovery of a small strip of land with consequential reliefs. 2. The property (Re-Survey) R.S. No. 611/1 belongs to defendants 2 and 3; R.S. No. 611/2 on its east belongs to the 1st defendant; and R.S. No. 612/2B, lying on the north of the above two plots, belongs to the plaintiff; and they are in the possession of the respective owners except a narrow strip, 2 to 3 feet wide, at the verge of the boundary between the plaintiff's land and the defendants'. Ext. C-1, the plan found correct by the courts below, shows that the fence at the boundary admittedly put up by the defendants, is not in the line of demarcation between R.S. Nos. 611 and 612, but is 2 to 3 feet away on one side or the other. Though the suit is framed as in ejectment from the encroachment, it is conceded that the relief sought is to settle the boundary along the line of demarcation as fixed by the Survey authorities at the resettlement. Though the defendants resisted the suit, the Munsiff had decreed it substantially as prayed for. Defendants 2 and 3, submitted to the decree; but the 1st defendant appealed before the Subordinate Judge who reversed the decree in part on the ground that the plaintiff had not proved his possession of part of the encroachment within 12 years prior to the institution of the suit. 3. The contentions of the 1st defendant, with whom alone we are concerned here, are that when he got possession of R.S. No. 611/2 in 1947 there was no fence between that and the plaintiff's property on the north, that he had been putting up a fence in the present line since 1947, and that the suit is without bona fides and has to be dismissed. 4. It is freely conceded by the parties that each is in possession of his respective survey number except the very narrow strip now in dispute at the verge of the mutual boundary and that the fence between their possessions is of a temporary character. It is common knowledge that in these parts monsoons are heavy and temporary fences require renewal every year. It is common knowledge that in these parts monsoons are heavy and temporary fences require renewal every year. Such temporary fences are not to be expected to be put up with mathematical precision at the correct location but may take gradual deviations according to the conditions of the place. There is no case here that the survey demarcations were any way incorrect. Since the properties are for their most part in the possession of the respective owners and the encroachment with the temporary fence is not much, the suit is virtually for fixing the boundary in its correct place. To such suits, the rule of onus in suits for ejectment of persons in possession of properties would be out of place, and the rule shall be on a par with that enunciated by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Lukhi Narain Jagaden v. Maharaja Jodu Nath Deo (21 I.A. 39) in somewhat similar circumstances: " ... in cases where the disputed line of division runs between waste lands which have not been the subject of definite possession. ..the ordinary rule regarding the onus incumbent on the plaintiff has really no application ... The parties to the suit are in the position of counter-claimants; and it is the duty of the defendant, as much as of the plaintiff, to aid the Court in ascertaining the true boundary. Were any other rule recognised, the result might be that some boundaries would be incapable of judicial settlement." 5. Where the disputed land is a narrow strip, (in this case, it is of width ranging from two to three feet) at the verge of the plaintiff's land adjoining the defendants' property it would in most cases, be difficult to prove its actual possession as such. If the remaining portion of the plaintiff's land is admitted or found to be in the plaintiff's possession, the same must be held to extend to the border, unless there be clear evidence to the contrary. If the remaining portion of the plaintiff's land is admitted or found to be in the plaintiff's possession, the same must be held to extend to the border, unless there be clear evidence to the contrary. In other words, when a person is admitted or found to be in possession of his land identified by a Survey Number and the dispute by the adjoining landholder concerns only a narrow strip at the mutual boundary, the possession of the former will be presumed to be coextensive with the relative survey division and the burden will be on the party claiming the encroachment to prove his adverse possession thereof for over the statutory period (of 12 years). See Achuthan Unni v. Vally (1962 KLJ. 400). 6. Even according to the defendant there was no fence before 1947 to separate the property of the plaintiff from that belonging now to the defendants. This suit has been instituted in 1954. Neither party could therefore have prescribed title to any portion of the other's land. In fact in this suit, each party claims his own survey number only, though the defendant would say that his survey number extends up to the fence put up by him as the boundary, which averment is found incorrect by both the courts below. The view of the subordinate judge that the suit has to fail as the plaintiff has not proved his possession of the disputed strip of land within 12 years prior to the institution of the suit cannot be upheld, and his decree based solely on such a view has to be discharged. 7. In the result, the decree of the lower appellate court is discharged and that of the trial court restored with costs throughout. Allowed.