This appeal is by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Gauhati affirming the judgment and decree of the Assistant District Judge Barpeta dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession. The plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of the suit land. They also claimed that they were in possession thereof. As there was a threat of dis­possession from 'he defendants the suit was filed. It is slated that during the pendency of the suit there was actual dispossession also. A suit was, there­fore, filed for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative recovery of possession. The defendants contested the suit on the ground, inter alia, that the defendants were in possession of the suit land since 1967 and, as such, they have acquired title over the suit land. In other words they claimed adverse possession over the suit land. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving the title. It held that as the plaintiffs had not claimed recovery of possession, there was no cause of action and the suit was not maintainable. Accordingly the suit was dismissed. An appeal was filed before the District Judge, Gauhati. The District Judge found that the trial Court was not justified in dismi­ssing the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs bad not claimed relief of recovery of possession. He observed in his judgment that there was an alternative prayer in the plaint claiming recovery of possession of the suit land. The learned appellate Court, however, held that though the plaintiffs succeeded in proving title they did not adduce any evidence to establish that they were in possession within a period of 12 years before the date of filing the suit. According to the appellate Court the suit was governed by Article 64 of the Limitation Act and it was for the plaintiffs to prove that they had come before the Court within 12 years from the date of dispossession. In other words, the learned appellate Court put the onus of proof in regard to dispossession within. a period of 12 years before the filing of the suit of the plaintiffs. In other words, the learned appellate Court put the onus of proof in regard to dispossession within. a period of 12 years before the filing of the suit of the plaintiffs. The learned appellate Court observed that as the suit in question was based both on title and possession the plaintiffs were bound to prove that they approached the Court within 12 years of their dispossession. As that was not done the appellate Court dismissed the suit, The decision of trial Court was thus affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the Courts below committed manifest error of law in holding that the burden of proof in regard to the date of dispossession was on the plaintiffs. It is also submitted that the correct Article applicable in the instant case is Article 65 and not Article 64. His contention is that both the Courts below, therefore, committed manifest error of law on both the aforesaid counts and the decisions, as such, are not tenable in law. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Shankar & others vs. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury ( AIR 1963 SC 698 ) where it was held that if the burden of proof has been placed en wrong and decisions arrived at on that basis the Court should interfere. In regard to the applicability of Article 65 the learned counsel places reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Hanjabam Bapumacha Shatma & another vs. Hanjabam Gakulchandra Sharma & others (AIR 1975 Gaiuati 47). I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. I have also heard Mr. S. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the judgment of both the Courts below. The facts relevant for deciding the controversy in this case are not in dispute. The admitted position is that the suit of the appellants-plain tiffs was based on title. Ii is also not disputed that the plaintiffs could succeed in proving their title. There is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below to that effect. The only question that has to be decided is whether it was for the plaintiffs to prove that they had instituted the suit within 12 years from the date of dispossession or it was for the defendants to establish that they acquired title by adverse possession. There is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below to that effect. The only question that has to be decided is whether it was for the plaintiffs to prove that they had instituted the suit within 12 years from the date of dispossession or it was for the defendants to establish that they acquired title by adverse possession. The law on the point appears to be well settled. When a suit is for possession of immovable property and is based on previous possession and not on title Article 64 applies and when a suit is for possession of immovable property based on title then Article 65 applies. Article 64 enables a suit within 12 years from dispossession for possession of immovable property based on possession and not on title, when the plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossessed. Article 65 is for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title ; (Nair Service Society Ltd vs. K.C. Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1165 ). The law, therefore, is that when a plaintiff brings a suit for possession of immovable property basing his suit on title and his title is established, then Article 65 of the Limitation Act would apply and it would be the defendant's burden to prove that he acquired title by adverse possession. In other words, he would be required to prove that he has been in possession adversely over plaintiff for statutory period of 12 years. When, however, a plaintiff brings a suit for possession of immovable property but bases his suit on previous possession and not on title Article 64 applies : Hanjabam Bapumacha Sharma (supra). Hence in a suit for possession of immovable property based on title the well settled legal position is that Article 65 of the Limitation Act applies and the burden is on the defendant to prove that he had acquired title by adverse possession. Hence in a suit for possession of immovable property based on title the well settled legal position is that Article 65 of the Limitation Act applies and the burden is on the defendant to prove that he had acquired title by adverse possession. It is well settled that if, in dealing with a question of fact, the lower appellate Court has placed the onus on a wrong party and its finding of fact is the result, substantially, of this wrong approach, that may be regarded as a defect in procedure and such a finding can be interfered by this High Court in second appeal under section 100 of the C.P.C. (V. Ramachandra Ayyar & another vs. Ramalingam Chettiar and another, AIR 1963 SC 302 ). Admittedly the Courts below in the instant case, placed the burden of proof on the plaintiff and on that basis arrived at a finding that the plaintiffs had to establish that they had been dispossessed within a period of 12 years before the filing of the suit and dismissed the suit. Such a finding based on erroneous assumption of law cannot be sustained. The same is, therefore, set aside. The case is remanded to the learned District Judge, Barpeta (who is now having jurisdiction in the matter) for deciding the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made above after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. As the case is a very old one the learned District Judge is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 4 months from today. Both the parties shall appear before the Court on 18th March, 1991 to obtain necessary orders. In the result, the appeal is allowed. No order as to cost.