Section 8 and 42 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts 140 and 142 Convention Evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 117 and 120 were the owners of the plaintiff's land suit land to prove the possession limit and He used to sell the suspects. The change of sale was affirmed in the years 1959 and 1960, in the year 1978, the plaintiff seized the sale and filed a lawsuit for recovery of the possession and declaration, which was decided by the trial court in his favor. Was heard and the order passed by the trial court was upheld. Lower Appellate Court But the High Court, under the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, decided the simultaneous finding of the two courts below and dismissed the case in which Waldetti Burden was on the plaintiff to prove the date of their settlement and the defendants. Provided substantial evidence of jamabandi along with measles. The pre-year period, 1971,, in which it was shown that the defendants and the plaintiffs, in the case of the plaintiffs regarding their disposals long before this year, was in contention. The appraisal and documentary evidence presented by the defendant failed to exclude this burden within a period of twelve years from the date of the filing of the case in the plaintiff's year, 1978 the High Court did not conduct a comprehensive examination of the findings of the two courts on eligibility. Of If the plaintiff had sold the land to the plaintiff but it would not be necessary for the Supreme Court to go into this question as the case filed by the claimant was withheld over time under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908 App r \ n
