JUDGMENT Ralph Benson, J. 1. It is argued that in the proceedings before the District Munsif in 1896, the plaintiffs right to get actual possession was negatived on the ground that the 3rd defendant was a tenant of the 1st defendant, entitled as his tenant, to remain in actual possession, notwithstanding the plaintiffs right to recover possession of the jenm right from the 1st defendant. I observe that the 3rd defendant in these proceedings claimed a jenm right in the land, and resisted the plaintiffs claim to possession. The appellants Vakil is unable to refer me to any evidence that the Munsifs decision proceeded on the footing that the 3rd defendants possession was as a tenant of the 1st defendant. In these circumstances, I do not think that the plaintiffs having obtained symbolical possession from the 1st defendant behind the 3rd defendants back in 1899 will save the bar by limitation. The case of Gopal v. Krishna Rao 25 B. 275 : 3 Bom. L.R. 1020 relied on by the appellants Vakil seems to have no application to the facts of this case. 2. The appeal is dismissed.