Judgement This appeal is by the plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant District Judge, Barpeta, in Title Appeal No. 39 of 1970. 2. The material facts may be briefly stated: The plaintiff (since deceased and legal representatives substituted) purchased 7 B. 1 K. 6 Lechas of land of kherai periodic patta Nos. 54 and 56 from defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are the sons of one Raghunath. 2 B. 4 K. 12 Lechas out of the aforesaid dag is covered by dag No. 61 of Periodic Patta No. 56, which was subsequently covered by dag No. 124 of kheraj periodic Patta No. 78 of the last resettlement. This is the suit land. His case is that he was in exclusive possession of the land on amicable partition with the co-sharers and that defendant No. 1 had no right, title and interest in the suit land. Defendant No. 1, however, fraudulently got his name mutated in patta No. 56. In Title Suit No. 1322 of 1936 filed by one Abhiram, father of defendants Nos. 10 and 11, against the defendant No. 1, it was held that the defendant No. 1 had no right, title and interest in the patta. Even in spite of that, through inadvertence, the name of defendant No. 1 was not removed from the jamabandi. Taking advantage of that, defendant No. 1 dispossessed the plaintiff on 24-8-53 by cutting paddy grown by him on the land. He filed a criminal case against defendant No. 1 and others, but there was an order of acquittal and hence the present suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 3. Defendant No. 1 alone contested the suit. His defence is that he purchased the suit land from its previous owner one Ramo Nath in 1932 and since then he was in possession of the suit land and that his name was mutated in 1935. 4. After trial the learned Munsiff decreed the plaintiffs suit, but on appeal the learned Assistant District Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff. The plaintiff has proved Ex. 1, the sale deed dated 1-5-36, by which he along with defendant No. 6 purchased 7 B. 1 K. 6 Lechas from defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 4. After trial the learned Munsiff decreed the plaintiffs suit, but on appeal the learned Assistant District Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff. The plaintiff has proved Ex. 1, the sale deed dated 1-5-36, by which he along with defendant No. 6 purchased 7 B. 1 K. 6 Lechas from defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. On the other hand the defendant has failed to prove any document in support of his claim of purchase from Ramo. The learned Munsiff, on a consideration of the materials on record, came to the finding, and in my opinion correctly, that the plaintiff has proved title to the suit land. This finding of the trial Court has not been set aside by the learned Assistant District Judge. 5. With regard to possession, the learned trial Court has found, on a consideration of the material on record, that "the plaintiff was in possession of the S/L till he was dispossessed by the contesting defendants". The finding of the learned lower appellate Court is "It is found above that the plaintiff was not dispossessed on the date alleged". In other words his finding is that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was dispossessed on 24-8-53 as alleged by him. In consequence he held that the plaintiffs suit was barred by limitation under Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908. In my opinion the finding of the learned appellate Court in this regard is erroneous. 6. Admittedly the Limitation Act of 1908 applies to the present case. The learned lower appellate Court found and in my opinion rightly, that Article 144 applies to the present case. Learned counsel of both the parties also agree that Article 144 applies to the case. 7. It is settled law that in a suit for possession of immovable property, based on title, Article 144 applies and the burden is upon the defendant to prove that he has acquired title by adverse possession and thereby the plaintiffs title had been extinguished. In the instant case the plaintiff has based his suit on title and the plaintiff has proved his title and possession for some time. In the instant case the plaintiff has based his suit on title and the plaintiff has proved his title and possession for some time. When the defendant has alleged that he has acquired adverse possession it is for him to prove all the ingredients of adverse possession including the date with effect from which his possession has become adverse and ripened into title extinguishing that of the plaintiff. In the instant case the learned lower appellate Court has erroneously held that it was for the plaintiff to prove the date of dispossession. That was necessary only when Article 142 applied. 8. In order to see whether there was any evidence on record in support of the defendant No. 1s plea that he has acquired adverse possession I allowed the learned counsel for the defendant to place the relevant evidence on record and he placed the evidence of D.W. 1. His evidence is that he is all along in possession of the land. There is nothing in his evidence to show that he had acquired adverse possession on the suit land. It must, therefore, be held that the suit is not barred under Article 144 of the Limitation Act. 9. In the result the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial Court are restored. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.