IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.79/2000 Dhanraj & Ors. Vs. Laxmi Narain. 14.11.2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri G.K. Garg, for the appellant. Shri B.L. Mandhana, for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Two courts below have found that the defendant respondent is in possession of the property in dispute since 1948. The learned trial court in its judgment dated 5.2.1992 while deciding the issue No.8 has held that the defendants are in possession of the property in their own rights since 1948. This finding has been upheld by the learned lower appellate court in its judgment dated 24.7.1999 on page 9 of the certified copy where the appellate court has held firstly; that the defendant has proved that he is in possession of the property in dispute since 1948 and at the same time the court below has also held that the plaintiff appellant herein has failed to prove his case that the defendant physically entered into possession of the property in dispute on 13.2.1987 so as to give rise to the cause of action for filing the suit as alleged. The relevant portion of the judgment of the learned lower appellate court reads as follows: "वादȣ यह तØ य ः थाǒपत नहȣं कर पाया है Ǒक जमनालाल ने उÈ त सà प× ि◌त पर वः तुत: कÞ जा कर िलया हो । वादȣ य ह तØ य भी ः थाǒपत नहȣं कर सका Ǒक ूितवादȣ लआ मीनारायण Ʈारा दोनɉ सà प× ि◌तयɉ पर 13.2.1987 को जबरन कÞ जा कर नींव खोदा गया हो । इसके ǒवपरȣत ूितवादȣ Ʈारा उपरोÈ त ǒववेचन से यह तØ य ः थाǒपत Ǒकया गया है Ǒक वादमः त सà प× ि◌तयɉ पर उसका कÞ जा 1948 से है ।......" Similarly the trial court while deciding i ssue No.8 on page 9 of the certified copy of the jud gment has recorded a finding as follows: "ूितवादȣ Ʈारा ूः तुत साआ य को देखते हये य ह तØ य ः थाǒपत ु होता है Ǒक ूितवादȣगण इस जायदाद पर वष[ 1948 से काǒबज चले आ रहे है।" In view of the above, the courts below having held that since the defendant came into in possession of the property in dispute in 1948 itself and the plaintiff having failed to prove his case that he was dis-possessed in the year 1987 so as to prove that the cause of action arose for the first time in 1987, the suit was held barred by limitation on proven facts. In view of the above findings of fact, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal and this second appeal under Section 100 CPC is consequently dismissed summarily. The stay application is also dismissed. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS