JUDGMENT Gokul Prasad, J.
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a portion of a fixed rate tenancy and removal of a house built upon it by the defendant. The defendant pleaded in reply that the construction was not on plaintiff's land, that the plaintiff had not been in possession of the land within 12 years, that he built on the laud with the permission of the zemindar who was in possession, and that in any event the plaintiff's right, if any, on the land had become extinct because of dispossession by the zemindar for more than, sis mouths. Tae Courts below have concurred in dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The First Court expressly held that the suit was barred by six months rule of limitation. It also found that, the defendant had, as a matter of fact, encroached upon a part of the plaintiff's land. These findings have been confirmed on appeal and the plaintiff comes here in second appeal. It is not necessary now to refer to the findings on the issues referred by me as the case has been argued by the appellant on the ground of limitation only. On the facts found, namely, that a part of the building in dispute stands on the plaintiff's fixed rate tenancy and further that the zemindar was responsible for the plaintiff's dispossession I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the decision of the Courts below on the question of limitation is right (see Ram Lal v. Chunni Lal 27 A. 372 : 2 A.L.J. 69 : A.W.N. (1904) 281 and Balbhaddar Chaubey v. Somaroo Rat 27 Ind. Cas. 914 : 3 A.L.J. 295. The plaintiff's suit was, therefore, rightly dismissed. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.