Judgment :- 1. The fate of the first of these cases will depend upon the fate of the second. Therefore,1 shall consider the second case, S. A. No. 1401 of 1961. 2. The second case arises out of an application for restitution under S.144 of the Code Civil Procedure, wherein both the lower courts have allowed restitution. The plaintiff-appellant contends in second appeal that the said decision of the lower courts is incorrect. The third defendant, who obtained restitution, is the respondent. 3. Two questions alone need be considered in the second appeal: (1) whether the application for restitution is barred by limitation; and (2) whether the respondent was in possession, from whom the appellant took possession by virtue of a decree in his favour, which was subsequently reversed in appeal. 4. The contention of the question of limitation is that it is Art.181 of the Limitation Act that applies to an application for restitution. There is a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Vasudevan v. Choyikutty (1964 K. L. T. 693) taking the view that the provision applicable is Art.181 of the Limitation Act of 1908. But, there is now a very recent decision of the Supreme Court in Mahijibhai Mohanbhai Barot v. Patel Manibhai Gokalbhai (A. I. R.1965 S. C. 1477), wherein the majority of the learned judges have held that an application for restitution under S.144 of the Code of Civil Procedure is an application for execution of a decree and therefore such an application is governed by Art.182 of the Limitation Act and not by Art.181. In view of this decision, the Division Bench ruling of this Court is no more good law. The consequence of the Supreme Court decision, as far as this case is concerned, is that the objection of bar of limitation pleaded by the appellant has to be over-ruled. 5. The second question is whether the respondent was in possession of the property; & whether it was from the respondent that the appellant took possession in pursuance of the decree in his favour. On this question there is a concurrent finding of the lower courts that the respondent was in possession of the property at the time of delivery and that the appellant took possession from him. On this question there is a concurrent finding of the lower courts that the respondent was in possession of the property at the time of delivery and that the appellant took possession from him. In second appeal, I do not think it is necessary for me to re-analyse and re-assess the evidence on this question, which is only a question of fact. 6. The decision of the lower courts is confirmed; and the second appeal is dismissed with costs. 7. S. A. No. 1400 of 1961 will also follow the same fate; but there will be no order regarding costs in that case. Dismissed.