- (1.) HEARD .
(2.) PLAINTIFF -Respondent No.1 acquired title and possession of the suit land and other lands, under the provision of Land Acquisition Act. After the said lands vested under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, it became statutory lessee under respondent no. 2 -State Government. Plaintiff filed this suit for declaring title of the respondent no. 2 as absolute owner and the plaintiff as lessee over the suit land under the respondent no. 2 and for recovery of possession etc. The suit was decreed. The first appellate court affirmed the decree. Hence this second appeal. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the defendant -appellant, submitted that suit was barred by limitation as the same was under Article 64 of the Limitation Act (the Act for short) and even if such point was not seriously raised before the courts below, the courts should have recorded a finding as to under which article the suit was governed. He further submitted that there is no finding that plaintiff -respondent No.1 was in possession prior to filing of the suit for twelve years. However, he submitted that if it is found that the suit is governed under Article 65, the appellant has got no case.
(3.) THE plaintiff -respondent was noticed on such point.;