The findings of the courts below on questions of fact, such as adverse possession, limitation, and genuineness of a document, cannot be challenged in second appeal.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for possession over a house.

( 2 ) BOTH the courts below have dismissed the suit, Hence this second appeal.

( 3 ) SHORTLY stated, the plaint case was that the house in suit was owned by one Dayal, He died leaving behind three sons, namely, Baiju, Jaggu and Hanuman, Baiju had separated from the family. As a result, the house went exclusively to Jaggu and Hanuman. The former predeceased the latter, Hanuman died sixty years back leaving his widow Shrimati Parbati as his sole limited heir. Shrimati Parbati died on 21-10-1938, leaving the plaintiff who is the daughter of Shrimati parbati aforesaid.

( 4 ) THE original defendant Debi Prasad, of whom the present respondent? are the heirs and legal representatives, was in possession of the house without any right or title. The cause of action arose on 21-10-1938 when Shrimati Parbati died and hence the suit for possession and damages.

( 5 ) THE suit was contested by Devi Prasad aforesaid. He asserted that he was in possession over the property in suit for over twelve years, and that the suit was barred by Articles 142 and 144 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.

( 6 ) THE defence was that Mohan Lal father of Debi Prasad had built the house in suit after obtaining permission of the Municipal Board in the year 1922. The last owner in the family of dayal was Jaggu, his brothers Hanuman and Baiju having predeceased. The plaintiff was not the heir of Hanuman. Debi Prasad the great-grandson of Ganeshi, brother of Dayal was the next reversioner of Jaggu (vide the pedigree given in the judgment of the lower appellate court ).

( 7 ) ON the pleadings of the parties necessary issues were framed. The trial court held that Jaggu was the last male owner of the property in question. It further held that Debi Prasad was in possession over the house in suit right from the year 1922, and that the suit was barred under articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act. In view of this finding, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the decision of the trial court, the plaintiff filed an appeal. The lower appellate court has agreed with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the plaintiffs appeal.

( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted only one point for my consideration. It was urged that the courts below have erred in law in rejecting Ex. 1, which purports to be a document executed by Debi Prasad, in which he admits the right of the plaintiff as the owner of the house in suit, and further agrees to vacate the house by 31-5-1940. This document is dated 4-9-1939. The courts below have rejected this document and have held that this document has been prepared for the present litigation and is not a genuine document executed by Debi Prasad. Learned counsel conceded that if the finding of the courts below with regard to the genuineness of this document is upheld, the plaintiff would have no case in view of the other findings of facts recorded by the courts below.

( 10 ) IN regard to this document, certain salient facts noted by the courts below may be mentioned. The suit was filed in the year 1950. This document was, however, not mentioned in the averments made in the plaint, Debi Prasad, the original defendant died in 1956. After the death of Debi Prasad, the plaintiff sought to have the plaint amended seeking to introduce the plea that debi Prasad by means of the aforesaid (document) dated 4-9-1939 admitted the title of the plaintiff and had asserted that he was in possession over the house in dispute as a licensee, and he would vacate the same by 31-5-1940. The amendment application was rejected, Thereafter, this document was sought to be filed as evidence in the case. The document was, however, permitted to be brought on the record. It is in these circumstances that this document found place on the record after the death of Debi Prasad.

( 11 ) THE courts below have rejected the aforesaid document