JUDGMENT R.R. Rastogi, J. - This appeal has been filed by the defendants against the decree dated 20.2.1969 passed by the Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff respondent for mandatory injunction and possession. 2. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that he was an old resident village Mundera Bazar in the District of Gorakhpur. He had an ancestral house in that village which is shown by letters ACIJ in the site plan attached to the plaint. The land to the north of that was his Sahen. The main door of house opened on that Sahen as also the balcony of the house was on that side and the Sahen land had been in his use for various purposes. It was alleged that about two days before the filing of the suit the defendants without any right or title encroached upon the Sahen land and put up a hut shown by letters QRST and also installed a Kolhu. Subsequently, they made some more constructions shown by letters MNOP. The suit was for demolition of these constructions and possession over the Sahen land. 3. The defence taken by the defendants-appellants was that they along with their brother Badri had their encestral house on the disputed land. That house fell down four years before the suit and they erected a hut on a portion of that land and installed a Kolhu as also started making some other constructions. It was claimed that the plaintiff had made a balcony abutting on the disputed land and opened the door on that side only about a year back in their absence and when they asked him to remove the same, it was settled between them that he would do so when the defendants made constructions on the disputed land. It is pleaded that the plaintiff had not removed the balcony nor he had closed the door. The defendants claimed themselves to be in possession of the land for more than 12 years and contended that the suit was barred by time. It was pleaded that the suit was bad for non-joinder of Badri. 4. Various issues were framed by the trial court. It held that the suit was not bad for non joinder of Badri and it had been properly valued and further that it was not barred by time. It was pleaded that the suit was bad for non-joinder of Badri. 4. Various issues were framed by the trial court. It held that the suit was not bad for non joinder of Badri and it had been properly valued and further that it was not barred by time. It was also held that the land in suit shown by letters ABHI in the Commissioners map was Sahen of the plaintiff. The suit was hence decreed with costs. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred an appeal against that judgment and decree and submitted before the learned Civil Judge that from the evidence on the record it was proved that the defendants had their house existing on the land in suit since long before and it did not constitute Sahan of the plaintiff and be had not been in its possession within 12 years before the filing of the suit. The learned Civil Judge made a reference to the oral evidence and came to the conclusion that it was more or less balanced. However, there were certain circumstances which supported the case of the plaintiff-respondent and they were that the main door of the plaintiff-respondent opened on the land in suit. His balcony abutted on this land. He had also a cattle trough on it was adjacent to his house. According to the plaintiff-respondent he had made the eastern part of his house Pucca about 12 years before this suit and it was at that very time that the door had been opened to the north and the balcony had also been made towards that side and towards the east. Ram Das defendant in his statement admitted that the Pucca portion of the house had been constructed about 12 years before. The learned Civil judge has placed much reliance on that statement and has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had been in possession of the land in suit for long and the defendants had not been in possession of the same before making the disputed constructions as claimed. On behalf of the defendants reliance was placed on two circumstances. The learned court below has discussed the same out has not found them to be of much help. In the result the decree of the trial court has been confirmed. 5. On behalf of the defendants reliance was placed on two circumstances. The learned court below has discussed the same out has not found them to be of much help. In the result the decree of the trial court has been confirmed. 5. It was submitted before me on behalf of the defendant-appellants that it was proved from the evidence on record that the suit was barred by time. I do not think that the submission has got much force because, as I have noted above, the court below has recorded a finding of fact on an appreciation of the evidence and circumstances of the case. That finding cannot be challenged in second appeal. It was further submitted that the plaintiff-respondent had not claimed any relief for demolition but had claimed a relief for injunction only. I do not find any force in this submission either. The relief was for a direction to be issued to the defendants to remove their construction and to restore the land in the possession of the plaintiff within a certain period failing which the plaintiff was to recover possession through the Court. It would appear, therefore, that the relief was for recovery of possession after demolition of the constructions and thus there was no defect in the framing of the relief. 6. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed with costs.