1. So far as the plaintiffs' (respondents') title is concerned, we are not satisfied that the lower Appellate Court misconstrued any documents in arriving at its conclusion that the road A in the plaintiffs' plan is the extreme southern limit of the defendants' hamlet and that the plaintiffs have established that their title-deed covers the plaint land.
2. But as regards the question of limitation, though the learned District Judge correctly sets out the point which falls to be decided by him, namely, that the plaintiffs ought to prove possession within 12 years before suit: see Mohima Chunder Mozumdar v. Mohesh Chunder Neoghi 16 C. 473 : 16 I.A. 23 : 5 Sar. P.C.J. 321 he discusses only those facts on which he finds that the defendants' possession arose within 12 years before suit, but fails to find whether at sometime during the remaining portion (which might be called the first portion) of the 12 years, the plaintiffs had proved possession in themselves either directly or by the actual cultivators having attorned to them or by the lands having lain waste during the whole or any portion of that period and possession being, therefore, presumably with the person having title. However, we are able to accept the District Munsif's view as to the facts (which view, we take it, was intended to be adopted by the District judge) that the plots 139 to 1318 and the sandy waste 11 wore not in possession of any person (other than the plaintiffs) continuously daring the 12 years before suit.
3. We, however, cannot accept the District Judge's finding (as it stands) on the question of limitation as regards the plots 131 to 138 and we request the District Judge to submit a revised finding on this question with reference to the above observations, after the necessary discussion of the evidence and distinguishing when necessary) the different plots according as they have been lying waste or had begun to be cultivated more than 12 years before suit.
4. The findings should be submitted within two weeks from the re-opening of the District Court after the midsummer vacation and ten days will be allowed for filing objections.
5. In compliance with the above order of this Court, the District Judge of North Arcot submitted the following.
6. * * * * *I must, therefore, find that plots B1 to 5 and 7 were waste prior to Fasli 1310 and plots 6 and 8 were waste prior to Fasli 1313, and being waste they were presumably in the possession of the plaintiff who had title to them.
7. This second appeal and the memorandum of objections coming on for final hearing after the return of the finding of the lower Appellate Court upon the issue referred by this Court for trial, the Court delivered the following.