JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The Defendant is in appeal against the confirming decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sundergarh in a suit for title, recovery of possession end damages. The disputed property is a strip of land 48 ft. x 16 ft. equal to about two decimals in area and is part of plot No. 452 with a total area of 96 decimals. The Plaintiffs came to Court on the allegation that the property was theirs and they were in possession and only in 1963 the Defendant No. 1 trespassed upon the property. Originally there was only one Defendant. He took the plea that he acquired the property by purchase from one Gangaram who came to be added by amendment as Defendant No. 2 in this suit. The Defendant No. 6 filed a written statement saying that for the first time he came upon the property in 1957. He had no title, but thinking that he was in possession of some Government land, he came to occupy an area of 55 ft. x 65 ft. He raised a kutcha house thereupon and ultimately when he left he sold the materials of the house and not the sand to one Haricharan Agarawalla (d.w. 2). 2. The Courts below have accepted the fact that the Plaintiffs were in possession until 1963 when the Defendant No. 1 trespassed. They have discarded the claim of the first Defendant that he acquired title to the property by sale from the Defendant No. 6 The further case made by the Defendant No. 1 in the amended written statement that there was a purchase through Haricharan (d.w. z) has also not been accepted. 3. Antecedent title of the Plaintiffs is admitted. The suit has been filed on 7-12-1964 and the new Limitation Act would apply. Therefore, until the Defendant establishes loss of Plaintiff's title on account of the Defendant being in adverse possession for more than the statutory period, the Plaintiffs are entitled to succeed on the basis of antecedent title. The Courts below on examination of the evidence have come to hold that the Defendant's possession began only in 1963, that is only a year or so before the institution of the suit. The Courts below on examination of the evidence have come to hold that the Defendant's possession began only in 1963, that is only a year or so before the institution of the suit. The Defendant No. 1 wanted to make out at the trial that d.w. 2 was in possession from 1952 and since the Defendant No. 1 and before him his predecessor-in-interest had remained in adverse possession for more than the statutory period, the Plaintiff's title was lost. The story introduced by d. w. 2 runs counter to the original claim laid in the written statement of the Defendant No. 1 and the written statement of Defendant No. 2. Mr. Basu contended that the Defendant No. 6 has no interest in the property and, therefore, his written statement in this suit should not have been given any weight. The oral evidence of the Defendant should not have been examined in the back-ground of the contentions in the written statements. I am not prepared to accept such a proposition as one of law. According to the Defendant No. 1 (Appellant) the second Defendant was his vendor and, therefore, title of the Defendant No. 1 flowed the title of the Defendant No. 2. Admittedly either the Defendant No. 2 or the Defendant No. 1 has no title to the property. They were only laying claim to the property on the basis of possession beyond the statutory period. Therefore, when the burden lay on the Defendant and when that burden of proof was sought to be discharged by oral evidence, the evidence has to be scrupulously examined. The Courts below have put the evidence of the Defendant to such test and have not found it sufficient to discharge the burden. I do not think in second appeal loan come to a different conclusion. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The Plaintiffs shall be entitled to costs up to the lower Appellate Court. There will be no order as to costs of this Court.