1. The facts of this case are stated in the judgment of the Court below. This must be treated as a suit to recover possession of land on proof of title, otherwise it would be barred by the law of one year's limitation. In order to succeed, the plaintiff must prove his title. It has been found as a fact that, when he was sent to jail, he had a right of occupancy, but it has also been found as a fact that he has neglected or omitted to pay his rent for five or six years. Section 6 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869 provides as follows: 'Every ryot, who shall have cultivated or held land for a period of twelve years, shall have a right of occupancy in the land so cultivated or held by him, whether it be held under pottah or not, so long as he pays the rent payable on account of the same.' Inasmuch as the plaintiff has omitted to pay rent for five years, it is impossible to say that he had on the day he instituted this suit a title therein subsisting, that is, a right of occupancy then existing in himself. Under the circumstances, we set aside the decree of the lower Court and restore the decree of the first Court with costs in this Court and the lower Appellate Court.