Short Note : 1. The trial Court held that on the death of Rukhdoo, the deceased plaintiff Vishwanath and respondent No. 7 Vinayakrao, who is now dead and whose legal representatives have been brought on record became the heirs. The suit was, however, dismissed on the ground that the suit land was in the possession of the State since the death of Rukhdoo which took place in the year 1935 and hence under Act 142 of the Old Limitation Act the suit was barred by time. 2. The deceased plaintiff Vishwanath filed civil Appeal No. 7-A of 65 in the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Dhar, against the judgment and decree of the trial Court but that Court also held that the suit was barred by limitation and consequently, dismissed the appeal. The deceased plaintiff had, therefore, filed this second appeal. 3. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the case is governed by Article 142 or Article 144 of the Old Limitation Act. The lower appellate Court in paragraph No. 5 of its judgment has stated that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land after the death of Rukhdoo in the year 1935. Article 142 of the Old Limitation Act, apply to a suit for possession of immovable property when the plaintiff while in possession of the property had been dispossessed or had discontinued the possession. Therefore, the 12 years period of limitation under that article would commence from the date of the dispossession of discontinuance. 4. In the instant case admittedly deceased plaintiff Vishwanath was never in possession of the suit land and hence there was no question of his dispossession or discontinuance so as to give him cause of action to bring the suit for possession. 5. The plaintiff had brought the suit for possession on the basis of his title which according to him, devolved on him on the death of Rukhdoo. The plaintiff, therefore, could bring the suit for possession within 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendants became adverse to him. That will give rise to the next question as to when the period of limitation can be said to have commenced under Article 144 of the Old Limitation Act. In other words it has to be seen when the possession of the defendant become adverse to the plaintiff. That will give rise to the next question as to when the period of limitation can be said to have commenced under Article 144 of the Old Limitation Act. In other words it has to be seen when the possession of the defendant become adverse to the plaintiff. It has come on record that in the year 1935, after the death of Rukhdoo the plaintiff himself being the Patwari made a report that Rukhdoo died without leaving a male line. As there was no one in actual possession of the suit land after the death of Rukhdoo the State Government started auctioning it every year. That would not mean that since the year 1935 the State became in adverse possession or the suit land. The plaintiff Vishwanath as well as respondents Nos. 7 and 8 claim to be the heirs of deceased Rukhdoo Rewa Bai the daughter of Rukhdoo also moved for the mutation of her name. Therefore, the Revenue Authorities started enquiry into the matter to find out whether the right title and interest of deceased Rukhdoo had vested in any particular person or persons. Thus, pending such an enquiry the action on the part of the State to auction the land every year for cultivation would not amount to an assertion of hostile title against the true owner. In Karan Singh vs. Bakar Ali, ILR 5 All. 1, the Privy Council had said that where pending the disputes between the parties the Collector in order to secure the Government revenue attached the land and took possession of the property the Collector's possession did not become adverse to the owner, although after the recovery of the land revenue the surplus amount of the auction sale was paid to some third person other than the true owner. 6. It may be pointed out that it was only on 28.6.1943 that the Kamawisdar for the first time made a report vide Ex.P-20 that the land left by deceased Rukhdoo was lawaris. I am, therefore of the view that the said date would be the starting point foot commencing the period of limitation under Article 144 of the Old Limitation Act because on that date there was assertion of a hostile title against the plaintiff. The suit has been filed within a period of 12 years commencing from 28.6.1943 and hence it was within time. The suit has been filed within a period of 12 years commencing from 28.6.1943 and hence it was within time. I, therefore, hold so and reverse the finding of the Courts below accordingly. AIR 1939 Nag. 7 : 24 MPLC 266 and ILR. 5 All. I, relied on. Appeal allowed. Case remanded.