Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 31-3-1980 passed by Shri Ramchandra Prasad, 1st Additional Sub-Judge, ranchi in Title Appeal No.25/12 of 1969/78 whereby and whereunder the said learned Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 31-1-1969 passed by shri Akhauri Anjani Kumar Singh, Additional Munsif, Khunti in Title Suit no.15/5 of 1963/68 dismissing the plaintiffs-appellants suit. 2. In view of the points of law involved in this case it is not necessary to state the facts in details. 3. Suffice it to say that a dispute arose in relation to the possession of the property in question by and between the parties to the suit culminating in a proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said proceediug under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was ultimately decided against the plaintiffs-appellants and in favour of the defendants-respondents by the Executive Magistrate on 23-6-1960. Admittedly the present suit was instituted for declaration of title and recovery of possession by the plaintiffs-appellants on 12-12-1963. 4. At the time of admission of this appeal the following substantial question of law were formulated :- " (a) Whether a suit filed within 12 years from the date of the order under Sec.145 Cr. P. C. can be said to be barred by limitation (b) Whether in case of members of Schedule Tribes limitation for filing suit for recovery of possession would lie within 30 years from the date when the plaintiffs became entitled to recover possession (c) Whether Articles 47 of the Limitation Act, 1908 or Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply in the present suit ?" 5 The Limitation Act, 1963 came into force with effect from 1-1-1964. In terms of Sec.31 (a) of the Limitation Act, 1963, if a suit became barred by limitation by virtue of any provision under the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 , the same does not revive under the provision of the New Limitation Act, 1963. 6. In terms of Sec.31 (b) of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit, appeal or any other proceeding instituted or made prior to coming into force of the limitation Act, 1963 shall be governed by the provision of the indian Limitation Act, 1908 . 7. 6. In terms of Sec.31 (b) of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit, appeal or any other proceeding instituted or made prior to coming into force of the limitation Act, 1963 shall be governed by the provision of the indian Limitation Act, 1908 . 7. In view of the aforementioned provisions contained in Sec.31 of the Limitation Act, 1963 there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the suit having been filed prior to the coming into force of the Limitation Act, 1963 the same shall be governed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 . 8. Admittedly in a suit of this nature Article 47 of the Old Limitation act would apply. 9. Mr. J. P. Rajgaria, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has, however, placed strong reliance reported in 1973 BLJR 409 (Radhika Thakur V/s. Kapildeo Mishra and others ). 10. In that decision it has been held that in suit of this nature the plaintiff is required not only to prove his title but also his prior possession within a period of 12 years from the date of institution of the suit in terms of Article 142 thereof. 11. This decision is, therefore, not an authority for the proposition that in a suit of this nature Article 47 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 shall not apply. 12. In view of the fact that the learned courts below have rightly found that the suit barred by limitation, in my opinion, no other or further question is required to be considered in this second appeal. 13. In the result this second appeal is dismissed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Second Appeal dismissed.