JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated July 28, 1978, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction, by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Mavli, dated March 28, 1975, decreeing the suit for injunction 2. A suit for injunction was filed by Vikas Panchayat, Khedi, in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Maveli, on Jan. 25, 1971, in respect of a 'Taliya' situated in village Khedi. It was alleged that the defendants viz. Jeet Mal, Chena, Nanga and Dalu were bent upon taking forcible possession of the 'Taliya' and had made preparations for raising constructions on the same, it was prayed that the defendants be restrained from taking possession of the 'Taliya' and making constructions on the same. The suit was contested by the defendants on the plea that they were already in possession of Taliya and that the present suit was not maintainable without a specific prayer for possession. 3. The Munsif Magistrate, Maveli, by the judgment dated March 28, 1975, decreed the plaintiffs suit holding that the possession of the 'Taliya' was with the plaintiffs and that the defendants had not acquired valid title to the same. On an appeal filed by Jeetmal, defendant No. 1, the Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur, by the judgment dated the 28th July 1978 reversed the finding of the learned Munsif and held that the possession of the 'Taliya' in question was with the defendants. The defendant No. 1 was in possession of the property when the suit was filed, and, there-fore, in the absence of a specific prayer for relief of possession, the suit for mere injunction was not maintainable. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal in this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The question whether defendant No. 1 was in possession of the suit property when the suit was filed, is a pure question of fact. The Additional Civil Judge, after elaborately discussing the evidence led by the parties, has come to a conclusion that the defendant No. 1 was in possession of the 'Taliya' when the suit was instituted. This finding, being a finding of fact, is not open to challenge in second appeal. The Additional Civil Judge, after elaborately discussing the evidence led by the parties, has come to a conclusion that the defendant No. 1 was in possession of the 'Taliya' when the suit was instituted. This finding, being a finding of fact, is not open to challenge in second appeal. The plaintiff in the present suit did not seek any relief for possession of the 'Taliya'. He has confined his suit for permanent injunction only. Therefore, the learned Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur, was right in dismissing the plaintiffs suit as not maintainable. 5. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs in this appeal.Appeal dismissed. *******