Judgment Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. 1. The defendants are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit in question had been filed on behalf of the plain-tiffs respondents for declaration of their title over plot No 4 measuring 13 decimals of village chanda in the then district of Shahabad and for confirmation of possession in alternative for recovery of possession of the said suit land if they are found to have been dispossessed. 2. It is an admitted position that the land in question had been recorded . in the name, of Sheo Sotnaru and Katwaru. Who were the ancestors of the plaintiffs. According to their case after partition in the family and death of some of the members this plot of land came in possession of Katwaru who was father of plaintiffs 1 to 4 and they have remained in possession thereof throughout. It is further their case that defendants appellants purchased the aforesaid land under a registered sale deed dated 3-2-1960 in favour of defendant No. 2 from the ex-intermediary who had no right title or in erest in the land in question which he could have conveyed to the defendants. 3. The defence of the appellants, on the other hand, is that although this plot was recorded in the names of the ancestors of the plaintiffs, but after survey, they surrendered it to the then intermediary, who came in possession thereof and on 3.02.1960 the heirs of the said intermediary executed the aforesaid sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 on the basis of which they came in possession and acquired valid title. 4. The learned Munsif, on consideration of the ancestor of the plaintiffs and they have title over the same. He further held that the case of the defendants regarding surrender by the recorded tenants in favour of the landlord was incorrect as such. The then learned could not have come in possession thereof so that after vesting of the estate, the ex-intermediary could have transferred by the aforesaid sale-deed dated 3-2-1960 in favour of the defendants. On that finding he decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. It may be mentioned that the trial Court was of the opinion that on the basis of the sale-deed dated 3-2-1960. On that finding he decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. It may be mentioned that the trial Court was of the opinion that on the basis of the sale-deed dated 3-2-1960. The defendants had dispossessed the plaintiffs but as the suit had been filed within 12 years from the date of the said dispossession, the plaintiffs were entitled for recovery of possession thereof. 5. The findings of the trial Court were also affirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge while dismissing the appeal filed on behalf of those defendants. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the defendants appellants submitted that the findings of the Courts below are vitiated because they have purported to make out a third case regarding dispossession of the plaintiffs on of about 3-2-1960 when the sale deed was executed in favour of defendant No. 2. According to the learned Counsel, the plaintiffs had never pleaded any such date of dispossession in their plaint and as such it was not open to the Courts below to record a finding on that question. I have already pointed out above that in the plaint, the plaintiffs pleaded for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and in alternative they have made a prayer for recovery of possession if they are found to have been dispossessed by the defendants. The Courts below have found that defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs after the execution of the sale deed in the year 1960. The present suit was filed on 3-8-1964. As such it was filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession If this finding is upheld, there is no question of the plaintiffs being extinguished by mere possession of the defendants. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the defendants-appellants then submitted that the Courts below were not only required to hold that plaintiffs have proved their title but they should have also examined as to whether the plaintiffs were in possession within 12 years of the institution of the suit. The learned Munsif as well as the Court of appeal below both have recorded a categorical finding that plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land till the execution of the sale-deed i e. till 3-2-1960 It is true that while recording the finding the Court of appeal below has not properly discussed the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses. The learned Munsif as well as the Court of appeal below both have recorded a categorical finding that plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land till the execution of the sale-deed i e. till 3-2-1960 It is true that while recording the finding the Court of appeal below has not properly discussed the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses. He has simply referred to those witnesses and given some comments but on a bare perusal of the judgment of the trial Court as well as of the appellate Court, it will appear that they hive discussed the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and in such a situation the argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that the onus was on the plaintiffs to prove their possession within 12 years of the institution of the suit loses its importance. It has been pointed out on many occasions by this Court that when both the sides lead evidence which is considered by the Courts concerned, then the question of onus is academic. I have already pointed out that the Courts below have categorically held that plaintiffs have established their title. They have also held that defendants have failed to prove the case of surrender by the recorded tenants in favour of the then landlord or their case that the landlord ever came in khas possession of the land in question. They have also held that plaintiffs have been dispossessed sometime in the year 1960 after the execution of the sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 2. In such a situation, I am not inclined to remind this appeal to the Court of appeal below for a fresh consideration of the evidence on the question of possession. 8. In this connection, I may point out that as the suit had been filed in the year 1964 when the new limitation Act of 1963 had come in force, which has made a substantial change from the requirement of Article 42 of the old limitation Act where a plaintiff had to prove not only his title but also possession within 12 years of the institution of the suit. Now under Article 65 of the new limitation Act, the period prescribed is 12 years since the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Now under Article 65 of the new limitation Act, the period prescribed is 12 years since the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiff. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that although the suit was filed in the years 1964. When the new limitation Act had come in force, it will be governed by the old limitation Act because the dispossession found, had taken place in the year 1960. In my opinion, there is no necessity of deciding this question, because I have already pointed out that the finding recorded by the Courts below can be upheld even under the old limitation Act. 9. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.