JUDGMENT : D.M. Patnaik, J. - This appeal is against the reversing judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in Title Appeal No.9/4 of 1984 in respect of the disputed land measuring 5 links x 100 links pertaining to plot No.48. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession since a cloud was cast on his title and possession by the sole defendant who also claimed title and possession. The lower Court framed the following issues: 1. Is there any cause of action to bring the suit? 2. Is the suit barred by limitation? 3. Is the suit land ever under possession of the plaintiffs or their father and appertains to the plaint schedule? 4. Whether the plaintiffs have acquired any easementary right over the suit land? 5. Has the defendant prescribed a title over the suit land? 6. To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled? Dealing with issues Nos.3 and 5 the lower Court held that the plaintiff had been able to prove title because of having been recorded in various revenue records including R.O. Rs. It also held that the defendant though specifically pleaded adverse possession, but failed to prove the same. 3. The lower appellate Court on the other hand reversed the judgment and decree of the lower Court by holding that it was for the plaintiffs to prove their possession and the lower Court committed error by throwing burden on the defendant to prove adverse possession. 4. Mr.R.B.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant, has drawn the attention of this Court to the pleadings of the parties as well as the judgment of the lower Court where the finding in favour of the plaintiffs has been so recorded. Mr.B.M.Patnaik, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has drawn the attention of this Court to the Amin's report and has highlighted the discrepancy in the said report. It is submitted by Mr. Patnaik that the land may be remeasured because of the report of Amin Commissioner which indicated as has been held by the lower appellate Court that the disputed land appertains to the current settlement plot no.49 which according to Mr. Patnaik admittedly belonged to the defendant and lies adjacent to the disputed plot No.48. 5. Having heard Counsel for the parties and on going through the records, documents and judgments of the Courts below. Patnaik admittedly belonged to the defendant and lies adjacent to the disputed plot No.48. 5. Having heard Counsel for the parties and on going through the records, documents and judgments of the Courts below. I am unable to accept that the contention of Mr. Patnaik that the land should be remeasured since I am satisfied that there is nothing wrong in the Amin's evidence and his report, the finding of which is that the disputed land measuring 5 links x 100 links appertains to plot No.4'). I am not inclined to reopen this matter of identity of the land which has been adequately proved. But the observation of the lower appellate Court that the plaintiffs should have pleaded their possession, is wholly unsustainable being contrary to law because when the plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of title, he is not supposed to prove his possession within 12 years. On the other hand, it is the defendant to prove adverse possession for more than 12 years so as to given him title. 6. However, on going through the judgment of the lower appellate Court it is found that though it is the specific case of the defendant that he has acquired title to the property by adverse possession and that the lower Court has discussed and considered the evidence from the side of the defendant with regard to this plea, yet the lower appellate Court has not mentioned a syllable in dealing with that point. In my view the lower appellate Court became totally oblivious to the fact that in a suit where the defendant claims title by adverse possession, the onus lies on him to prove the same, but there is no discussion in this regard for which the judgment is set aside. 7. In the result, the second appeal is allowed. The lower appellate Court's judgment is set aside. The case is remitted back to the lower appellate Court. It shall deal with the specific point if the defendant has acquired title by adverse possession by considering the evidence already on record and dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the lower Court records. No costs. The L.C.R. be sent back forthwith. Final Result : Allowed