Short Note : The trial Court decided all the issues framed in the suit and ultimately dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Court. The learned Additional District Judge, Mandla, who heard that appeal dismissed it on the ground that the suit was time barred. No other question arising in that appeal has been decided. The suit was treated to be time barred by the first appellate Court on the assumption that the prescribed period of limitation for such a suit was only three years and on the conclusion reached by the trial Court that the defendants' house had been constructed in the year 1964, it was held applying the three years limitation that the suit was time barred. This has led to the filing of the present appeal by the plaintiffs. Held : The only question in this appeal is whether the first appellate Court was right in treating the suit as time barred and in applying the three years period of limitation for such a suit. The suit was based on title and even on the conclusion reached by trial Court that the defendant's house had been constructed in the year 1964, the suit filed in 1969, could not be treated as time barred. The first appellate Court has not referred to any Article of the Limitation Act on which reliance has been placed for applying the three years period of limitation. It appears that the period of three years prescribed for claiming the relief of declaration has been applied by, the first appellate Court. This inference follows from the conclusion reached by the first appellate Court that the plaintiff ought to have brought a suit for declaration and then claimed possession as a consequential relief. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to support either the reasoning or the conclusion reached by the first appellate Court. He rightly does not dispute the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that to such a suit the period of limitation applicable is of twelve years and reckoning the limitation even from 1964, the suit is within time. No further discussion of this question is, therefore, necessary. It is obvious that the first appellate Court was clearly in error in dismissing the suit as time barred. That finding is, therefore, reversed. Appeal allowed.