JUDGMENT R.S. Singh, J. - This is a plaintiffs second appeal against the decree and judgment dated 10-4-1973 of the Civil Judge, Rampur affirming that of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs suit. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for declaration of title and possession over the house in suit. The suit was filed on the allegation that the site of the house in suit was allotted to the plaintiff in the year 1934 by Sri Ghulam Wahid Khan, Tehsildar and that the plaintiff is in possession over the land in dispute from the date of allotment and constructed a house over the same Defendant no. 1 who is the aunt of the plaintiff acquired possession of the said houses no. 202/228 situated in Chak No. 25 during the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. The order passed under section 145 Cr. P. C. was confirmed by the revisional court on 29-9-1959. The defendant no. 1 had no concern with the houses in dispute, but she wrongfully transferred the said house in favour of defendants nos. 3 and 4 who again transferred the same in favour of defendants nos. 5 and 6. 3. The suit was contested by defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 that the plaintiff is not the owner of the house. He has never been in possession over the same. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit. It was further alleged that the suit was barred by time. 4. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment of the trial Court which also met with the same fate. The plaintiff has now filed the instant appeal against the decrees of the courts below in this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the - appellant has challenged the decree of the courts below on a number of grounds and placed a number of authorities before me in support of his contentions. But all the grounds raised and the authorities referred to by the learned counsel are of no help, in view of the fact that all the grounds raised here in this Court were not raised and pressed before the courts below. But all the grounds raised and the authorities referred to by the learned counsel are of no help, in view of the fact that all the grounds raised here in this Court were not raised and pressed before the courts below. But the arguments on behalf of the plaintiff were confined only to the fact whether the plaintiff is the owner of the house in suit and he is in continuous possession over the same. The learned counsel for the appellant has not filed any affidavit of the learned counsel appearing before the lower appellate court to show that the points other than mentioned by the lower appellate court in the judgment were raised and pressed before it but the same were not considered by it. 6. From the perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court it is clear that "The only point which is argued in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has been able to prove his title and continuous possession over the house in suit or not." It has also not been challenged before me that the above observation made by the lower appellate court in its judgment is wrong and against the facts of the case. Therefore, in view of this observation in the judgment of the lower appellate court there is no justification for the learned counsel for the appellant to raise the grounds other than the grounds on which the appeal was pressed before the Sower appellate court. The learned counsel tried to raise the question of jurisdiction before this Court that the courts below have no jurisdiction to try the suit which on the face of it, is untenable for the reason that it is the plaintiff who set the ball in motion and once the case has gone against him, he is not entitled to challenge the jurisdiction of the courts below. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant were also of the similar nature and the authorities referred to in support of his contention are also of no help, lit view of the facts of the case and the observations of the lower appellate court made in its judgment the only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has been able to prove his title and continuous possession over the houses in suit. 7. 7. In a case where the defendant is admittedly in possession on the date of the filing of the suit, in order to get a decree it is always necessary for the plaintiff to prove his title and also that the suit has been filed within time, the trial court has considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case by the parties and recorded a finding that the plaintiff is not the owner of the house in suit and further that the suit has been filed beyond time. The lower appellate court also examined the material evidence on the record and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. The findings recorded by the courts below that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title in the houses in suit and that the defendant is in possession for more than twelve years, are findings of fact based on appraisal of evidence on the record. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to prove that the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court are perverse or without any basis of the evidence on the record. Therefore, in my judgment, the suit has been rightly dismissed by the courts below. There is no force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.