1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for demolition of certain constructions and for an injunction. The plaintiff's case, as set forth in the plaint, was' that the defendant had on his occupancy lands built these constructions without his permission some five years before the suit. The defendant pleaded that these constructions were not new but had existed for some 40 years When the case came on for hearing the plaintiff in his evidence stated that these constructions had been built some six or seven years before. On the other hand, the defendant's evidence was that they had been built some 15 years before. The Court of first instance in its finding on issue No. 3 came to the conclusion that these constructions were within six years of the institu-tionof the suit. It held that the Article applicable was Article 120 and, therefore, overruled the plea of limitation raised by the defendant.
2. On appeal by the defendant the lower Appellate Court has, it appears to me, come to a quite different finding on the facts. It was not impressed by the plaintiff's vague statement that the houses were built six or seven years ago and there being no other satisfactory evidence to corroborate it, it came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that these constructions were made within six years of the suit. By implication it has inferred that these constructions must have been made more than six years before the suit. On this finding it dismissed the suit holding that it was barred by time.
3. On appeal the only point taken is that the claim is not barred by time. The learned Counsel who apears for the appellant argues that the Article 120 is not applicable but that Article 144 is applicable. He has cited no other Article except Article 144. Its is manifest that Article 144 Can in no sense be applicable. The houses were built on defendant's occupancy lands. The plaintiff does not allege in his plaint that he had actual possession of the lands and has ever lost possession. It is not a suit for possession at all. The landlord has not tried to avail himself of his right to eject under Section 57 (b) of the Tenancv Act. Under the circumstances, Article 144 can have no application whatever. If the defendant has by building the houses on the occupancy lands perverted the property to a purpose other than that for which he has a right to use, then the claims falls within Article 32 of the Limitation Act and is governed by only two years' rule of limitation. In any event, Article 120 only applies both as regards the relief for demolition of constructions and for an injunction. I take the finding of the lower Appellate Court to be that the cause of action acorued in favour of the plaintiff more than six years previous to the suit. The claim is, therefore, on that finding barred by time. I am supported in this view by the rule of law laid down in the case of Laoh Bam Rao v. Jangi Rai 12 Ind. Cas. 108 : 8 A.L.J. 914. The appeal has no force and I dismiss it.