JUDGMENT 1. - The brief facts giving rise to this second appeal are as under:The plaintiff-respondent Chouthmal was the owner of the building known as 'Mahal Bari', Mohalla Kala Bada, Mahaveer Chowk, Purani Tonk. He instituted a suit bearing No. 81/75 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 with the allegations that the appellants-defendants were tenants in respect of a portion in the said house and had taken unlawful possession of the rooms in dispute about 4-5 months before the institution of the suit and prayed that a decree for possession and for damages at the rate of Rs. 60/per month against them and in favour of the plaintiff-respondent be passed. The suit was contested by the appellants-defendants, who denied that they had taken unlawful possession of the rooms in dispute but pleaded that they had been the tenants in respect of the rooms in dispute. After framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence produced by the parties, the learned Munsif, Tonk vide his judgment dated 6-41977 held that the appellants defendants had taken unlawful posses sion of the rooms in dispute and were not the tenants in respect of the said rooms and, consequently, decreed the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff-respondent in respect of the said rooms. The appeal filed by the appellants-defendants was heard by the learned Civil Judge, Tonk, who vide the impugned judgment dated 15-10-1982 upheld the findings of the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants-defendants have approached this court by filing this appeal and it was admitted on 8-2-1983. During the pendency of the appeal, plaintiff-respondent Chouthmal sold the property in dispute to Surendra Kumar and Vinod Kumar (the respondents No. 2 and 3) and on application having been made by them, vide order dated 27-10-1987 they were impleaded as respondents in this appeal. 2. When the appeal came-up for hearing on 2-11-1988 it was contended that no issue with regard to the limitation had been framed by the learned trial court and there was no specific finding with regard to the fact that the defendants-appellants had taken possession of the suit property within six months from the date of filing of the suit. 2. When the appeal came-up for hearing on 2-11-1988 it was contended that no issue with regard to the limitation had been framed by the learned trial court and there was no specific finding with regard to the fact that the defendants-appellants had taken possession of the suit property within six months from the date of filing of the suit. Finding merit in this contention, the following issue was framed and was remitted to the learned Civil Judge, Tonk to record a finding on the said issue after taking evidence of the parties and to send the same to this court: "whether the defendants took possession of the suit property in December, 1974 as alleged in paras Nos. 3 and 6 of the plaint and the suit is within limitation?" (Onus on the plaintiff) The learned first Appellate Court thereafter recorded the evidence produced by the parties and vide order date 28-2-1990 has recorded a finding that the appellants-defendants had taken possession of the rooms in dispute in December, 1974 and the suit having been filed within six months therefrom was within the period of limitation. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 4. I have gone through the finding recorded in the order dated 18-2-1990 and also through the statements of the witnesses produced by the parties on the above said issue and find that the learned first Appellate Court has discussed the evidence produced by the parties in detail and has given good reasons to reject the evidence of the defendants-appellants and to come to the conclusion that they had taken unlawful possession of the rooms in dispute in December, 1974 and, as such, the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act had been filed within t;,e period of limitation. No defect has been pointed out to me in the finding recorded by the first Appellate Court and since I agree with the reasons given by the court below I need not repeat them in this judgment. 5. There is another aspect of the matter. Even if it be taken that the appellants took unlawful possession of the rooms in dispute on a day which was beyond the period of six months of the date of filing of the suit, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent cannot be thrown out. 5. There is another aspect of the matter. Even if it be taken that the appellants took unlawful possession of the rooms in dispute on a day which was beyond the period of six months of the date of filing of the suit, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent cannot be thrown out. It is not disputed that the plaintiff respondent was the owner of the rooms in dispute and, as noted above, the appellants had stated that they were as tenants in respect thereof. He did not plead any case of adverse possession. The title of the respondent-plaintiff having been admitted the only thing to be seen by the court is as to whether the defendants-appellants were in unauthorised occupation of the rooms in question and once this is so found the suit for possession on the ground of the title has to be decreed. It is now well settled that it is always open to a court to give the plaintiff such general or other relief as it deems just to the same extent as if it had been specifically asked for, provided that occasions no prejudice to the other side. (See judgment in case Kedar Lal V/s Hari Lal reported as AIR 1952 SC 47 As noted above, the appellants had admitted that the plaintiff- respondent was the owner of the property in dispute and they had not set-up any case of adverse possession. In these circumstances, no prejudice would be caused to the appellants if the decree for possession on the ground of title is granted to the plaintiff on the admitted facts of the case. In these circumstances, even if it was held that the suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act could not be decreed having been filed beyond the period of limitation a decree has to be passed with a direction that the requisite court-fee payable in ordinary suit for possession should be paid by the decree-holder. 6. No other point has been raised before me. 7. In the result, this appeal being without merit is dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed with costs. *******