Short Note : 1. There is no dispute that the lands in suit belonged to Gauri Shanker, father of the plaintiff. Gauri Shanker died in 1948 leaving behind two sons, plaintiff Ramgarib and defendant No.3 Jokhu. The plaintiff's case is that there was a partition between the brothers and the suit lands came to his exclusive share. The plaintiff alleged that in 1956-57, defendant No. 1 Satyanarayn dispossessed him. It was also alleged that defendant No.2 Oudhsharan came in possession though defendant No.1 sometime in 1963-64. Defendants 2 and 3 remained exparte and defendant No.1 alone contested the suit. The case of defendant No.1 was that Khasra No.167 was sold by Gauri Shanker sometime in 1934 to the uncle of defendant No. 1 Benimadhav for a sum of Rs. 20/-. It was also pleaded that Khasra No. 168 was abandoned by Gauri Shanker and the State settled that Khasra in favour of Benimadhav in 1937. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the sale of 1934 pleaded by the defendant was not proved by him. It was also held that the fact that Khasra No. 168 was abandoned by Gauri Shanker and it was settled with Benimadhav by the State in 1937 has also not been proved. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by adverse possession. The appellate Court, however, held that the oral evidence adduced by the parties was inconclusive about possession. The Court further held that the revenue papers did not show as to who was in possession from 1952 to 1956. The appellate Court then held that as the plaintiff failed to prove his subsisting title on the date of the suit, he was not entitled to succeed. It was on this basis that the suit was dismissed by the first appellate Court and nut on the ground that the defendant No.1 had perfected his title by adverse possession. Held: Having heard learned counsel, I am of opinion that this appeal must be allowed. Learned counsel for the respondents has frankly conceded that the sale alleged to have been made by Gauri Shanker in 1934 in respect of Khasra No. 167 has not been proved. Held: Having heard learned counsel, I am of opinion that this appeal must be allowed. Learned counsel for the respondents has frankly conceded that the sale alleged to have been made by Gauri Shanker in 1934 in respect of Khasra No. 167 has not been proved. He has also conceded that the plea of abandonment of Khasra No. 168 and its settlement by the State in favour of Benimadhav has also not been proved. It is an admitted position that Gauri Shanker was the recorded tenant of the suit lands. On Gauri Shanker's death in 1948, the plaintiff inherited the suit lands along with Jokhu. By an oral partition, the plaintiff alone got the suit lands. I have already mentioned that Jokhu impleaded as defendant No.3 did not contest the title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's title to the suit lands, therefore, is fully established. The only question then is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. The oral evidence adduced by the parties relating to possession has not been believed by the first appellate Court and, therefore, it is not necessary to refer to that evidence. The relevant revenue papers are Exs. R-2 and D-6. In Ex D-6, defendant No. 1 Satya Narayan shown to be in possession in the year 1951-52; but in the years 1952-53 to 1955-56 the Pattedar i.e. recorded tenant is shown to be in possession. It is true that in the column of Pattedar the name of Gauri Shanker continued to be recorded during all these years although he was dead. But this is obviously for the reason that the mutation was not made in the name of the plaintiff till then. It is, however, quite clear that no person other than the Pattedar was in possession, otherwise the name of such a person would have been recoded in column No.8. Further if both the parties failed to lead reliable evidence of possession as held by the first appellate Court, the presumption would be that the owner was in possession. Possession is always presumed to be with the real owner, unless it is shown that some one else was in possession. In my opinion, therefore the plaintiff was the owner has been successful in proving his possession from 1952-53 to 1955-56. Defendant No. 1 Stayanarayan was clearly not in possession during these years. Possession is always presumed to be with the real owner, unless it is shown that some one else was in possession. In my opinion, therefore the plaintiff was the owner has been successful in proving his possession from 1952-53 to 1955-56. Defendant No. 1 Stayanarayan was clearly not in possession during these years. It appears to me that the plaintiff's case that he was dispossessed sometime in 1956-57 is correct. This is supported by the revenue papers because in 1956-57 again Satyanarayan is shown to be in possession. The dispose-session of the plaintiff thus took place in place in 1956-57. The suit was brought on 22nd October 1967. The suit was thus Cleary within limitation. Appeal allowed.