JUDGMENT C.S.P. Singh, J.- By my order dated 9-3-1971, I had permitted the parties to amend their pleadings and had directed the lower court to frame additional issues and to remit its findings on those issues, The lower court framed the following additional issues:- 4. Is the suit for possession now barred by time ? 5. Are the defendants permanent tenants ? 6. Is the suit for possession bad for want of notice under section 106 Transfer of property Act ? 2. On issue No. 4, it has found that the suit of the plaintiff was not barred by time. On issue No. 5, the finding is that the defendants are not even tenants of the disputed plot. On issue No. 6, the finding is that it was not necessary to send any notice under section 106 of the Transfer of property Act and the suit cannot be said to be bad on that account. 3. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show me that the findings recorded by the lower court are in any way erroneous and as such the findings have to be accepted. 4. The suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed solely on the ground that the plaintiff had not prayed for the relief of possession although he was out of possession. The lower appellate court had taken the view that the defendants were not in exclusive possession of the disputed plot, and that mere user of the land by the defendants for stacking their logs of wood would not convert their possession into one which was adverse to the plaintiff. In view of the supplementary findings that have now been recorded that the suit of the plaintiff is not barred by time even if it be assumed that the defendants were in possession of the land, the appeal cannot succeed. 5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The plaintiff shall now be entitled to a decree for possession of the disputed land. The appellant shall pay the costs of the appeal.