JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a defendants second appeal in a suit for recovery of Rupees 2390/- on account of damages suffered by the plaintiffs on account of their dispossession from the land in suit which the defendant had sold to them under a sale deed dated 11-3-1953 for Rs. 1590/ . The trial Court decreed the suit for the recovery of the entire amount claimed. The lower appellate court confirmed the decree. 2. The only point which was raised before the lower appellate court and which has been urged before me is that the suit was barred by limitation. The sale deed was dated 11-3-1953. The present suit was filed on 23-9-1965. 3. The plaintiffs case was that their names were mutated and possession delivered to them over the land in suit immediately after the sale deed. This allegation made in paragraph five of the plaint was expressly admitted by the defendant in paragraph five of his written statement. However some third persons Umrao and others filed a suit for declaration that they were sirdars in possession of the land in suit. The present plaintiffs and the defendant were made the defendants to that suit which was registered as suit No. 1518 of 1954 (Umrao v. Ram Bodh). It was dismissed by the trial court on 4-9-1956 but was decreed on appeal by the district court on 29-4-1959. which decree was confirmed by this Court in second appeal on 12-7-1965. 4. According to the plaintiffs the cause of action for the suit arose on 12-7-1965 when the decree in suit No. 158 of 1954 became final declaring Umrao and others to be Sirdars in possession of the land. According to the defendant-appellant the date of the accrual of the cause of action was the date on which the sale deed was executed, viz., 11-3-1953. 5. It was urged before the lower appellate court and the same argument has been repeated before me that it had been held in the earlier suit that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant of the present suit were in possession of the land, and that finding being binding on both the parlies to the present suit it must be held that the plaintiffs never-got possession under the sale deed and that being so the present suit is clearly barred by limitation, 6. So far as the present suit is concerned it was specifically pleaded in paragraph five of the plaint by the plaintiffs that their names were mutated and they entered into possession of the land in suit immediately after the sale deed. This fact has expressly been admitted in paragraph five of the written statement. In the present litigation, there could thus be no dispute that the plaintiffs entered into possession over the land in suit alter the sale deed and the cause of action would accordingly accrue from the date of their dispossession which obviously was the date on which the decree for declaration in the earlier suit became final by the judgment of this Court given on 12-71-1965. For the; reasons given by the lower appellate court agree that the finding recorded in the earlier suit that Umrao and others were in possession of the land in suit, implying thereby that the present plaintiffs did not enter into possession of the land after the sale deed, is not binding as res judicata between the parties to the present suit, who were co-defendants in the earlier litigation and were not at issue on this point. 7. Learned counsel has tried to urge that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the costs of the earlier litigation as damages in the present suit, this point does not appear to have been raised before the lower, appellate court and decline to go into if. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.