Judgement This appeal is by the defendants, who lost in both the Courts below. 2. The material facts are: The plaintiff purchased the suit land measuring 2.77 acres, fully described in the Schedule to the plaint, from its owner Wahengban Selungba Singh, who was in possession, by a registered sale deed dated 19-1-1953. His vendor delivered Khas possession of the land to the plaintiff, who continued in possession. On or about 25-12-1959, defendant No. 2 prevented the plaintiff from collecting rents from his tenants in respect of the suit land. On enquiry, he learnt that the defendant No. 2 had obtained mutation on 14-3-1968, vide Mutation Case No. 287 of 1957, without any notice to him. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the order of mutation but it was dismissed by the Chief Commissioner of Manipur. He then filed Title Suit No. 99 of 1960 (130 of 1962) in the Court of Munsiff, Manipur, for declaration of his title to, and for recovery of khas possession of, the land and got a decree on 8-6-1965. Defendant No. 2 preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Manipur, but the appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff executed his decree, vide Execution Case No. 47 of 1965 (5 of 1968) of the Court of Munsiff and got khas possession of the land on eviction of defendant No. 2 therefrom. The plaintiff further alleges that even after the execution of the decree, the defendants were disturbing him in his possession. On further enquiry, the plaintiff found that during the pendency of Title Suit No. 99 of 1960 (130 of 1962) in the Court of the Munsiff, defendant No. 2, by two registered sale deeds dated 23-1-1961 and 1-2-1962, sold the land in dispute to defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs case is that defendant No. 1 cannot get title to the suit land under the abovementioned sale deeds as they are hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 3. The plaintiff also has claimed mesne profit of Rs. 324 per year from the defendants. 4. Only defendant No. 1 has filed a written statement and contested the suit. He denies the allegations of the plaintiff. He admits the purchase of the disputed land from defendant No. 2 by two sale deeds dated 23-1-1961 and 1-2-1962, aforesaid. He however asserts that defendant No. 2 had title to the suit land. 4. Only defendant No. 1 has filed a written statement and contested the suit. He denies the allegations of the plaintiff. He admits the purchase of the disputed land from defendant No. 2 by two sale deeds dated 23-1-1961 and 1-2-1962, aforesaid. He however asserts that defendant No. 2 had title to the suit land. He further alleges that the sales were in pursuance of a contract for sale dated 25-2-1959 between him and defendant No. 2. He pleads that he was not aware of Title Suit No. 99 of 1960, aforesaid. He further pleads that the suit is barred under Art. 142 of the Limitation Act of 1968. 5. The learned Munsiff framed a number of issues, of which the following two are material: "6. Is the transfer of the suit land by defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1, hit by Section 52 of the T. P. Act? xx xx xx 9. Is the suit barred by Article 142 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908?" 6. Ext. A/1 is the certified copy of the judgment dated 8-6-1965 passed by the Munsiff in T. S. No. 99 of 1960 (130 of 1962). Ext. A/1 shows that it was instituted on 2-8-1960 and decided on 8-6-1965. Ext. A/15 and Ext. A/16 are the sale deeds dated 23-1-1961 and 1-2-1962 respectively. The sales, therefore, obviously were during the pendency of the suit and hit by Section 52 of the T. P. Act. Learned counsel, Shri T. Bhubon Singh, however, submits that the contract for sale, Ext. B/1 dated 25-2-1959, had been entered into between defendants Nos. 1 and 2 before the filing of the suit. He submits that the contract for sale (Ext. B/1) is as a part of the sale ending on the date of the registration of the deeds and is anterior to the suit. It is difficult to accept this submission of learned counsel. 7. 1 and 2 before the filing of the suit. He submits that the contract for sale (Ext. B/1) is as a part of the sale ending on the date of the registration of the deeds and is anterior to the suit. It is difficult to accept this submission of learned counsel. 7. Section 52 of the T. P. Act, inter alia, provides that during the pendency in any court of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose. The explanation to Section 52 provides that for the purpose of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force. 8. Section 54 of the T. P. Act defines "Sale" as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. This section also defines a contract for sale of immovable property as a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.A sale may not take place in pursuance of a contract for sale. It does not effect any transfer of property and is not part of sale. 8-A. Section 52 prohibits transfer of the land in suit or otherwise dealing with it by a party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any party to the suit. It does not effect any transfer of property and is not part of sale. 8-A. Section 52 prohibits transfer of the land in suit or otherwise dealing with it by a party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any party to the suit. The section is based on the sound principle that during the pendency of the suit, the status quo on the rights of the parties on the suit land shall be maintained, so that the party that ultimately wins the suit may not be deprived of the fruit of the decree he obtains. In the instant case the agreement for sale (Ext. B/1) has nothing to do with Ext. A/15 and Ext. A/16, so far as the bar of Section 52 is concerned. The submission of learned counsel, therefore, has no substance. Clearly, defendant No. 1 cannot get right or interest in the suit land, his purchase having been hit by Section 52 of the T. P. Act. 9. The next question is whether the suit is barred under Art. 142 of the Limitation Act. The suit having been filed in 1970, the Limitation Act of 1963 will apply and not the Limitation Act of 1908. It is, therefore, to be seen whether the suit is barred under Article 64 of the Limitation Act of 1963. The present suit is one for possession based on title. Therefore, Article 65, and not Article 64, will apply to the case in hand. The burden is, therefore, upon the defendants to prove that they had acquired title by adverse possession. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that in pursuance of the execution of the decree in Title Suit No. 99 of 1960, the plaintiff got delivery of possession of the suit land on 21-6-1966 on eviction of defendant No. 2 in Execution Case No. 47 of 1965. Ext. A/4 is the certified copy of the report of the Bailiff showing the delivery of possession to the plaintiff on 21-6-1966. The suit was filed in 1970. The plaintiff, therefore, was clearly in possession within 12 years of the date of dispossession. Hence, the suit is not only not barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, but it is clearly within time even under Article 64 of the Limitation Act. 10. The suit was filed in 1970. The plaintiff, therefore, was clearly in possession within 12 years of the date of dispossession. Hence, the suit is not only not barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, but it is clearly within time even under Article 64 of the Limitation Act. 10. The last submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the decree for mesne profit is bad in law. The learned District Judge has found, "Of course the lower Court did not fix the actual amount of mesne profit to be recovered from the appellant". The learned trial Court has, in fact, not decreed any amount as mesne profit, as the plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove the produce of the land for the year 1970-71. The submission of learned counsel is not called for. 11. In the result, this appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.