JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal, by the defendants, is directed against the judgment and decree dated November 23, 1979, of the Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur , reversing the judgment and decree dated September 24, 1977, passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur dismissing the plaintiffs suit being barred by limitation. The Additional District it Judge, by the judgment under appeal has remitted the case for trial in accordance with law. 2. The sole question for consideration in this appeal is whether the present suit was barred by limitation. The suit was filed by Goswami Shri Ranchod Lal Ji Maharaj, on July 15, 1972, in the Court of Munsif City, Jodhpur, against the State of Rajasthan, Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan. Shortly stated, the plaintiffs case was that a Haveli, known as 'Balkrishnalal Ji Ki Haveli, situated in Juni-Dhan-Mandi, Jodhpur, belonged to the plaintiffs. All the property, movable or immovable, in the Haveli was his personal property. Whatever offerings were made according to Vallabh Sampradaya belonged to him. There is a temple of Shri Balkrishanalal Ji also in this Haveli. It was alleged that the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, passed orders on March 22, 1972, to prepare an inventory of jewellery etc. in the temple. The date for preparing the inventory was fixed as March 30, 1972. On this day, the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, accompanied by several others, came to the Haveli, broke open the lock of the Toshakhana and started preparing the list of the articles. They continued the work on March 31, 1972 upto 11 p.m. and then left the place telling the plaintiff that after preparing the 4 list they would carry-away the property. The plaintiff averred that the act of the defendants was wholly unauthorised and they had no right to carry away the goods. The plaintiff sought an injunction ? for restraining the defendants from carrying away the goods from the Haveli. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. It was alleged that the Haveli belonged to the temple. It was denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the Haveli and all the property, movable & immovable, in the temple was his personal property. It was stated that all the offerings received in the temple formed part of the temple property. The suit was contested by the defendants. It was alleged that the Haveli belonged to the temple. It was denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the Haveli and all the property, movable & immovable, in the temple was his personal property. It was stated that all the offerings received in the temple formed part of the temple property. It was further stated that iD the year 1951 a complaint of misappropriation of the temple property by the plaintiff was received in the Devasthan Department. On this, orders to prepare an inventory of the temple property were passed by the Government. A writ petition challenging the aforesaid action was filed by the plaintiff in the High Court but the same was dismissed in 1952. Thereafter, the godowns of the temple were sealed and the plaintiff was asked to open his locks arid assist in preparing the inventory. The defendants further alleged that the plaintiff did not co-operate. He did not supply the keys. His employees told the officials that Goswami Ji had gone out and the keys of the godowns can be obtained on his return. It was further stated that the matter was put off for one reason or the other and the inventory could not be prepared. It was In 1972 that the proceedings were resumed. Amongst the several pleas raised by the defendants one was that the present suit was barred by limitation. 4. Here, it would not be out of place to mention that the plaintiffs Writ Petition, being writ petition No. 78 of 1951 was dismissed by this Court on April 7, 1952, on the ground that the case involved disputed questions of fact and it was not a case for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution. By the judgment dated August 24, 1977, Additional Civil Judge, dismissed the plaintiffs suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. An appeal was filed by the plaintiff in the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur, which was assigned to the Additional District Judge No. 2, who by his judgment dated November 23, 1979, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and remitted the case to the Trial Court, holding that the suit was not barred by limitation. The learned Additional District Judge, held that in the present suit the plaintiff was not challenging the defendants action as regards the sealing of the Toshakhana but was seeking injunction restraining the defendants from removing the goods from the temple. As per the Learned Additional District Judge, the cause of action arose to the plaintiff in 1972, when the goods were sought to be removed from the Toshakhana. 5. I have heard the Deputy Government Advocate, for the State. No one has appeared for the plaintiff respondent despite service of notice of the appeal. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has assailed the order of the Additional District Judge on the ground that the plaintiff should have brought the suit immediately after the order for preparing the inventory was passed in 1951. He waited for 20 years and the suit was hopelessly out of limitation. 6. I do not agree with the Deputy Government Advocate Except sealing the Toshakhana nothing more was done in 1951-52. The locks of the plaintiff continued right upto 1972. The Additional District Judge has pointed out that the plaintiff in the present suit was not assailing the putting of seals on the Toshakhana. Even the inventory could not be prepared as the keys remained with the plaintiff and he did not make available the same to the defendants. This is indicative of the continued possession of tire plaintiff over the suit property. A party has a right to elect and choose the moment for bringing a suit when several or successive attempts to invade his possession are made. The goods in the Toshakhana remained there till 1972 when the Davasthan Department again tried after 20 years to remove the same. The possession of the plaintiff was treatened in 1972 and the suit was filed in 1972 itself. In these circumstances I agree with the learned Additional District Judge that the plaintiff suit could not be thrown on the ground of being barred by limitation. 7. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.Appeal dismissed. *******