Short Note : 1. Plaintiffs-appellants had filed a suit against the defendants for possession of the suit land. According to the plaintiffs sometime in the year 1930 their predecessor Ramnarain had created licence in favour of Govind Deo in relation to the suit land. Govind Deo built a Kachcha house on a part thereof. The house that was built by Govind Deo fell down. The plaintiffs contention was that the licence so granted had come to an end. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and also their plea of giving suit land on licence in favour of Govind Deo. The lower appellate Court also dismissed the suit. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants in the absence of the plea of adverse possession or any finding on that behalf by the lower appellate Court the finding that the case of the plaintiffs would be governed by Article 142 of the Limitation Act becomes infructuous. It was also contended that there was no finding that plaintiffs were at any time dispossessed or has discontinued the possession, therefore, Article 144 of the Act would be applicable and not Article 142. 2. This Court finds that the contention of the learned counsel that the plea of adverse possession was not taken by the defendants is not correct. The plea was specifically taken in the written statement. Therefore, now the only point that remains to be decided is whether Article 142 of the act has been rightly held applicable to the facts of the present case. It is well settled that where the plaintiff claims possession on the basis of his title, as in the present case, Article 142 of the Limitation Act applies which prescribes a period of limitation of twelve years for a suit of possession of immovable property when the plaintiff has been dispossessed from the date of dispossession or discontinuance of the possession. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that Article 142 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to the present case, Md. Murtiza Khan vs. State of M.P. and Others, 1966 JLJ 543 , relied on. Appeal dismissed.