JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J.:— The ease of the plaintiff, who is appellant here, is that the respondents got a decree against him for possession, of certain area of land, and that in execution they took possession of an area much greater than what had been decreed to him. The plaintiff brought a suit to recover possession of the land which the defendants had taken in excess of that decreed to them. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge held that the matter was one in regard to which an application might have been made under; section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that consequently the suit would not lie. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal. It is argued that the view taken by the learned Judge is wrong. In my judgment the view taken by the Judge is right and is fully supported by the decision in the case cited by him, namely, Imdad Ali v. Jagan Lal, [1895] I.L.R., 17 All, 478.. The learned Vakil for the appellant refers to the earlier rulings, which he considers support his case, but in my opinion the Judge was right in following the latest ruling of this Court which is in accord with what has been said by the Privy Council as to the scope of section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If it had been possible to treat the plaint as an application under section 244, as has been done in some cases, I should have been glad to consider the case from that point of view but the plaintiff says in his plaint that he came to know of the defendants' acts on the 5th of October, 1892. His suit was not filed until the 18th June, 1904, when the period of limitation for an application under section 244 had long expired. There is no doubt on the findings of the Courts below that the defendants fraudulently took possession of land in excess of what was decreed to them, but the plaintiff has slept so long over his rights that he has lost his remedy. For the above reasons I dismiss the appeal, but having regard to what I have said, I make no order as to costs.