JUDGMENT R. L. Khurana, J.: The present Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the concurrent findings of the two courts below declaring the order dated 22.10.1990 of Assistant Collector, First Grade, as null and void and as a consequential relief granting the decree for possession of the land measuring 0-03-28 Hects. comprising of Khata No. 174 - Min, Khatoni No. 416 and Khasra No. 416 of Kasba Baijnath, District Kangra, hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute, in favour of the plaintiff. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that she is in possession of the land in dispute. Kesar Mai, the original defendant and the predecessor-in- interest of the present defendants, in order to grab the land in dispute filed an application before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Baijnath for correction of the revenue entries and to record him as in possession of the land in dispute. Alongwith such application, Kesar Mal, above named swore a false affidavit to the effect that the plaintiff was dead. The Assistant Collector First Grade, without holding any enquiry and without affording any opportunity to the plaintiff ordered the correction of the revenue entries in favour of the defendant Kesar Mal. On coming to know about such wrong order, the plaintiff called upon the defendant Kesar Mal to get the same cancelled. Since he failed to do so, the suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, came to be filed by the plaintiff for declaring the order dated 22.10.1990 of the Assistant Collector First Grade, as null and void and for injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff qua the land in dispute. In the alternatively, a relief for possession was claimed on the basis of possessary title. 3. The defendants, while resisting the suit asserted that their predecessor-in-interest, Shri Kesar Mal had purchased a house property alongwith corresponding share in the Shamlat, including the land in dispute from the plaintiff about fifteen years before the suit and that since then they are coming in possession thereof as owners. The plaintiff after the above said sale had left Baijnath and her whereabouts were not known. The plaintiff after the above said sale had left Baijnath and her whereabouts were not known. Since the defendants were in actual possession of the land in dispute located in front of their house, an application for correction of revenue entries was made to the Assistant Collector First Grade. The order dated 22.10.1990 of the Assistant Collector is legal and valid. 4. The two courts below have concurrently found the plaintiff to be not in possession thereof. The order dated 22.10.1990 of the Assistant Collector was found to be null and void. Consequently, after declaring the said order dated 22.10.1990 as null and void, a decree for possession of the land in dispute was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, on the basis of possessary title. 5. The sole substantial question of law arising in the present case is ] whether a suit for possession based on possessary title can be decreed without I there being pleadings as to dispossession and without requiring proof of dispossession within twelve years prior to the institution of the suit. 6. Article 64, Limitation Act, 1963, deals with the suit for possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not on title, when the plaintiff, while in possession of the property has been dispossessed, the period of limitation for such a suit is twelve years beginning from the date of dispossession. 7. Be it stated that the present suit, as constituted is not the one for possession simpliciter. It is a suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff claims herself to be in possession of the land in dispute and thus has sought injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in her possession. In the alternative, a prayer for possession has been made in the following words: "In case the, the plaintiff is dispossessed by the defendant during the pendency of the suit or she is found out of possession, in that event possession of the suit land be ordered to be delivered to the plaintiff with cost of the suit." 8. The two courts below, while declining the relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff, have concurrently held that the plaintiff is not in possession of the land in dispute. The two courts below, while declining the relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff, have concurrently held that the plaintiff is not in possession of the land in dispute. Therefore, before the alternative relief for possession of the land in dispute based on previous possession could be granted to the plaintiff, she was obliged to prove:- (i) that she was dispossessed from the land in dispute during the pendency of the suit; or (ii) that her dispossession took place within twelve years prior to the suit. 9. Nothing has come on the record to show that the plaintiff was dispossessed from the land in suit during the pendency of the suit. 10. The only evidence led by the plaintiff is her own statement as P W 1. In such statement, she has nowhere stated about her dispossession within twelve years prior to the suit. Infact, she is silent on this aspect though she admitted some construction having been raised by the defendants over the land in dispute. 11. No doubt in Ex.P-1, Jamabandi for the year 1983-84, the plaintiff is recorded in possession of the land in dispute. This only shows that the plaintiff at one time was in possession of the land in dispute. The second pre-requisite that she was dispossessed therefrom within the stipulated period before suit, has not been established. 12. In Bibi Rafigan v. Najib Khan and another (AIR 1958 Patna 530), it has been held that suit under Art. 64, Limitation Act, 1963, must be brought within 12 years of the date of dispossession. Article 64 is very general in nature and only conditions necessary are that the suit should be for possession of immovable property and should be based on previous possession and that the plaintiff, while in possession of the property has been dispossessed. The burden of proving date of dispossession is on the plaintiff, who, in order to succeed, must prove that dispossession was not prior to 12 years of tli; date of filing of the suit. 13. A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Jaidhari Mahto and others v. Rajendra Singh and others (AIR 1958 Patna 386), has also taken the similar view. 14. 13. A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Jaidhari Mahto and others v. Rajendra Singh and others (AIR 1958 Patna 386), has also taken the similar view. 14. The Gauhati High Court in Hanjabam Bapumacha Sharma and another v. Hanjaban Gokulchandra Sharma and others (AIR 1975 Gauhati 47), has the held that when a plaintiff sues for possession on the basis of dispossession, the burden lies on him to show that the date of dispossession was within 12 years of the suit. 15. In Taja Bibi v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat and others (1961 J&K 82) and in Patteri Pakkar v. Chengatiye Kombi Ammad and others (AIR 1957 Madras 701), it has been held that the plaintiff cannot succeed under Art. 64, unless he makes out not only that the has possessary title over the property but also that he was in possession within 12 years next prior to the filing of the suit. He is bound to prove that he or his predecessor-in-interest was in possession within the period of 12 years next prior to the filing of the suit and failing this he is out of court. 16. In the present case, though the plaintiff has been able to show that she was in possession of the land in dispute, she has miserably failed to prove her dispossession within 12 years next prior to the filing of the suit. Therefore, no decree for possession could have been passed in her favour on the basis of possessary title. The point of law involved in answered accordingly against the plaintiff. 17. As a result, the appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the two courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No orders as to costs.