JUDGMENT : This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge in Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1956 dated 25-11-1961, by which he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate-Judge in Title Suit No. 5 of 1953. 2. The 3 appellants as plaintiffs brought a representative suit on behalf of 133 villagers of the 3 villages, Awang Jiri, Phoijing Chingjin and Khajiri for declaration of their title to 33 paris of land covered by patta Nos. 92/47, 91/64 and 93/55 J.W.T. Their case was that the villagers reclaimed the 33 paris about 40 years ago and that to avoid any possible objection from the Dowager Maharani of Manipur, they allowed the said lands to be mutated in the name of the late Shri R.K. Chandrahas Singh, the brother of the late Maharajah, of Manipur and the father of the two respondents who were defendants in the suit and that by way of courtesy they used to pay fish caught from some pits in the said land to the said Shri Chandrahas Singh, although he had no title to the lands. They also said that they paid the revenues for the said lands, but again admitted that in some years the pattadar also paid the revenues. They say that they had to file the suit for declaration of the title because in the year, 1952, the respondents attempted to cause the land to be sold for nonpayment of revenue although the necessary money therefor had been paid by the appellants to the respondents. The contention of the respondents was that the appellants were their tenants, that the used to pay loushal to Shri R.K. Chandrahas Singh, during its lifetime and after his death they used to pay loushal to the respondents and that therefore they were not entitled to get a declaration of their title. 3. Both the Courts below found that the appellants and the other villagers were the tenants of Shri Chandrahas Singh and after his death of the respondents and they disbelieved the case that the patta was taken in the name of Shri Chandra has Singh, benami for the villagers. They found, however, that the appellants have been in possession of the said land throughout and that they did not pay any loushal, but that the fish given by them was by way of rent. They found, however, that the appellants have been in possession of the said land throughout and that they did not pay any loushal, but that the fish given by them was by way of rent. This admission of the payment of fish by way of rent and the further admission of the payment of revenue in some years by the pattadar were relied upon by both the lower Courts for their finding that the patta which stood in the name of Shri R.K. Chandrahas Singh was not benami for the villagers of the 3 villages. 4. Now in appeal it was argued for the appellants that in the face of the finding of the lower. Courts that the villagers have been in possession of the 33 paris of land continuously for 40 years, the lower Courts should have applied Sec. 110 of the Evidence Act, regarding burden of proof of ownership and that in view of the finding of the lower Courts that the case of the respondents that the villagers paid loushal to them as tenants was false, the lower Courts should have come to the conclusion that the villagers were the owners of the said lands. It was also argued that by the long continuous possession of the lands by the villagers they have prescribed for title against the respondents and against their predecessor-in-title by adverse possession. 5. I find myself unable to accept this argument. The appellants case in the plaint was not that the villagers have prescribed for title by adverse possession, but that though the patta stood in the name of Shri B.K. Chandrahas Singh it was benami for them and that the patta was taken benami on account of the objection raised by the Dowager Maharani of Manipur against the reclamation and the possession by the villagers. They themselves produced the 3 pattas - Exts. PA to PC of the year 1922-23, in which Shri R.K. Chandrahas Singh is shown as the pattadar and the villagers are shown as the Paikastadars or persons in possession. Thus, when the patta mentions a person as pattadar and other persons as in possession, it will only mean that those other persons in possession are in possession under the pattadar. It is, however, the case of the appellants that the patta was taken in the name of Shri R.K. Chandrahas Singh, benami, for the villagers. Thus, when the patta mentions a person as pattadar and other persons as in possession, it will only mean that those other persons in possession are in possession under the pattadar. It is, however, the case of the appellants that the patta was taken in the name of Shri R.K. Chandrahas Singh, benami, for the villagers. This is a matter in respect of which the burden of proof will be on the appellants themselves, in the face of the very pattas produced by them which go against their case. 6. P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are plaintiffs 2 and 3, save evidence as to the circumstances under which the patta was taken in the name of Shri R.K. Chandrabas Singh. According to them, when the villagers reclaimed and started possessing the land, the Dowager Maharani of Manipur created obstruction and so to avoid trouble, the patta was taken in the name of the late Maharajahs brother Shri R.K. Chandrahas Singh and the villagers were shown as Paikastadars. This very evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 would go against the case of benami. A benami transaction is usually undertaken if the intention was to screen the real persons name for any reason. But in this case, there was no attempt to screen the names of the villagers, but on the other hand Shri R.K. Chandrahas Singh was shown as pattadar and the villagers as Paikastadars in the pattas which the villagers accepted. This will not mean that the patta was taken benami in the name of Shri R.K. Chandrahas Singh, but that the villagers for their own protection wanted that the patta should be in the name of Shri Chandrahas Singh and that they should be Paikastadars under him. In other words, they accepted for their own protection that Shri Chandrahas Singh was their land-lord and that they were tenants under him. This position was also allowed by them to continue all these years until they filed the suit. During all these years, they never attempted to deny that. Shri Chandrahas Singh was the real pattadar and that they were his tenants. They admitted that they used to pay fish caught from the pits to Shri R.K. Chandrahas Singh. One fails to see why they should have given the fish at all to Shri Chandrahas Singh if they did not accept him as the pattadar. Shri Chandrahas Singh was the real pattadar and that they were his tenants. They admitted that they used to pay fish caught from the pits to Shri R.K. Chandrahas Singh. One fails to see why they should have given the fish at all to Shri Chandrahas Singh if they did not accept him as the pattadar. It is the plaint allegation that they paid out of courtesy. But in their evidence, P.Ws. 1 and 2 said that they used to pay fish to Shri Chandrahas Singh in re-turn for the help which he rendered to them. In other words, it means that the villagers accepted Shri Chandrahas Singh as their land-lord because that protected their possession of the lands and that for this protection they paid him fish caught from the land. Thus, the very case set up by the appellants went against the benami nature of the patta. Further the admission by the appellants that in some years they paid revenue direct and that in other years they paid revenue through the pattadar again shows that they accepted the pattadar as their land-lord. 7. No doubt, the respondents had set up an inconsistent case. They said that the appellants paid them loushal. This was clearly found to be false by both the lower Courts. Next they Raid that the appellants occupied the land by force. This was also found against by both the Courts. There is no doubt that the appellants and other villagers have been throughout in possession of the lands and that all that Shri Chandrahas Singh and the Respondents were getting from them was fish. The payment of revenue through the pattadar which is admitted by the appellants themselves has to be taken as a clear admission that the appellants and other villagers were the tenants of Shri Chandrahas Singh and after his death of the respondents. When once this position of tenancy is accepted, it is for the appellants to show that this relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased and that the appellants claimed proprietorship of the land openly and adversely against the pattadar. They have not let in any evidence of such open and adverse possession as proprietors against the pattadar until they filed the present suit. The appellants are not therefore entitled to a declaration of their title as against the real pattadar. 8. They have not let in any evidence of such open and adverse possession as proprietors against the pattadar until they filed the present suit. The appellants are not therefore entitled to a declaration of their title as against the real pattadar. 8. In that connection, I may also say that both parties admitted before me that prior to the merger of Manipur with the Indian Union and during the Maharajahs rule, benami transactions were unknown in Manipur and benami transactions were never recognised by the Civil or Revenue Courts in Manipur. The Assam Land and Revenue Regulation was extended to Manipur by Darbar Resolution in 1946. Section 15 of the said Regulation provides that no person shall acquire, by length of possession or otherwise any right over lands disposed of or allotted under Secs. 12, 13 and 14 of the Regulation beyond that which is given by the rules made under the section. But no rules were framed under the section before the merger of Manipur. Section 39 of the Regulation also says that the order of a Settlement Officer as to the person to whom a settlement will be offered, the amount of revenue to be assessed and the nature and term of the settlement to be offered shall be final and a settlement concluded with that person shall be binding on all persons from time to time interested in the estate. The pattas Exts. PA to PC clearly show that Shri Chandrahas Singh was the pattadar and that the appellants and other villagers were Paikastadars. The appellants and other villagers cannot, in derogation of the patta, be allowed, to claim that they are the pattadars or in other words they cannot be allowed to set up that the patta was benami for them. 9. For the appellants, strong reliance was placed on the decision Mohammad Yusuf v. Sarju Singh, AIR 1942 All 42. But that decision has no application to the present case. There, certain persons were found to be in possession of a certain grove as strangers as early as 1899 and they continued in uninterrupted and unexplained possession until 1934 and there was no trace of any indication of the capacity in which they were in such possession. It was held that such possession must be presumed to be possession with an intention to claim the full rights of a proprietor. It was held that such possession must be presumed to be possession with an intention to claim the full rights of a proprietor. In our present case, the possession of the villagers was not unexplained. It was clearly possession under the pattadar and in acceptance of that possession they paid revenue at least in some years through the pattadar. Thus, their possession was clearly explained as possession under the pattadar. Further, the appellants, as I already stated, have no case of adverse possession in their plaint. Their case was one of benami which I have held that they have not proved and I have also found that they cannot be allowed to prove it. Hence, the appellants have no case at all and no declaration of title can be given to them. 10. The second appeal fails and it is dismissed with the costs of the respondents. Appeal dismissed.