S. K. PHAUJDAR, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-3-96 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Mau, in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1992 arising out of Original Suit No. 51 of 1990. This suit was filed by Shamshul Haq for permanent injunction and the suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Mau, by his order dated 20-5-92. 2. It was, the case of Shamshul Haq, according to the plaint, that the house in suit property belonged to Mohd. Yusuf and Mohd. Hasan. The purchase of that proper ty was made in the name of Mohd. Yusuf alone although the fund was joint of Mohd. Yusuf and Mohd. Hasan. From their joint funds a house was raised on the joint property. They created a mortgage of the suit property on 26-6-52 in favour of Salim Ullan for a sum of Rs. 5000. The plaintiff used to take care of Mohd. Yusuf and Mohd. Hasan and they also loved him much. After the execution of the mortgage deed they had made an oral gift of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and they also put him in possession. The gift was accepted by the plaintiff and he started living in the suit property as the owner and Mohd. Yusuf and Mohd. Hasan had no concern with the suit property thereafter. 3. It was further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff had redeemed the mortgage by paying to Salim Ullah the mortgage money and the right of Salim Ullah on the suit property under the mortgage also extinguished. The plaintiff obtained sanction from the Municipality and made some constructions on the suit property. Mohd. Yusuf was a member of the Municipal Board then and everything was done within his knowledge. The plaintiff also got electricity connection in the premises and his ration card also indicated this very premises against his name. The plaintiff alleged further that he was running a power loom in the suit property and the house tax for the building was also paid by the plaintiff. 4. It was alleged that the defendant No. 1, Jameel Ahmad, was a moneyed man and he was out to harass the plaintiff. He was affraid of Mohd. Yusuf, the donee of the plaintiff. Mohd. 4. It was alleged that the defendant No. 1, Jameel Ahmad, was a moneyed man and he was out to harass the plaintiff. He was affraid of Mohd. Yusuf, the donee of the plaintiff. Mohd. Yusuf stealthely took away the original mortgage deed that the plaintiff had taken back from Salim Ullah and there after a fake sale deed without consideration was executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 and on the basis thereof they were trying to disposses ses the plaintiff. The dispute gave rise to a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. and accordingly a suit was necessary. 5. The plaintiff prayed for an order of injunction against the defendants so that they may not disturb the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. It is worth note that the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 were made parties as a measure of abundant precaution. Defendant No. 3 happens to be Mohd. Hasan. 6. The suit was contested by Jameel Ahmad and Mohd. Yusuf. They asserted that only Mohd. Yusuf was the sole owner of the suit property and they also accepted that there had been a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. and that Mohd. Yusuf had made a sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 1. All other relevant averments in the plaint were denied. It was stated by way of addi tional assertion that the plaintiff was never the owner and occupier of the suit property. The defendant No. 2, Mohd. Yusuf, was the sole owner in occupation of the property and he sold it out of his free will to defen dant No. 1 Jameel Ahmad on a considera tion of Rs. 48,000 and the sale deed was registered on 30-1-1983 and Jameel Ahmad was put in possession thereof. The house number of the suit property in the municipal record was 59. It was being as sessed in the name of Mohd. Yusuf and after the sale it is being assessed in the name of Jameel Ahmad. There had never been any oral or written gift of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and he had never redeemed the mortgage. The plaintiff had never made any construction on the suit property nor was any permission given to him by the Municipality. 7. There had never been any oral or written gift of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and he had never redeemed the mortgage. The plaintiff had never made any construction on the suit property nor was any permission given to him by the Municipality. 7. The trial court framed several issues including one whether the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the suit property and one on the question of the limitation. On the first mentioned question the trial court disbelieved the theory of the oral gift made in favour of the plaintiff. He also disbelieved the theory of exemption of the mortgage by the plaintiff and it was further his con clusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove any connection with the suit property and he had further failed to prove that he was in possession or occupation thereof. He also rejected an alternative case put forward during arguments that the plaintiff had at-least perfected his title by adverse posses sion. This plea was also disbelieved on the materials proved before the court. The plaintiff further relied before the trial court on a report of a Commissioner deputed by the court for surveying the suit property. The commissioners report made it clear that the house he was taken to had a board showing that it was House No. 61. The plaintiff did not question the defence ver sion that the suit property was House No. 59. 8. In the first appeal also these very issues were reagitated and the findings of the trial court were confirmed. On the ques tion of the oral gift the plaintiff-appellant raised a point before the lower appellate court that the gift was made to him out of love and affection. Mohd. Yusuf had the whole family with him including his wife and children and the appellate court held that it was unusual that a gift would be made to a person not belonging to the family. It was also urged before him that there was an admission on the part of Mohd. Hasan about the gift but the court refused to act upon such admission as the property stood in the name of Mohd. Yusuf alone and never in the name of Mohd. Hasan. The sale was also made not by Mohd. Hasan but was done by Mohd. Yusuf alone. This Mohd. Hasan about the gift but the court refused to act upon such admission as the property stood in the name of Mohd. Yusuf alone and never in the name of Mohd. Hasan. The sale was also made not by Mohd. Hasan but was done by Mohd. Yusuf alone. This Mohd. Hasan was alive but was not examined as a witness. On the question of possession the evidence was discussed by the first appellate court and it refused to accept the story of posses sion of the plaintiff. He had discussed the municipal receipts only to find that they did not relate to the suit property bearing House No. 59. 9. The present appeal must be looked into in the backgrounds of these findings. The appeal is proposed to be pressed on several question. The first point raised is that the court below had failed to take note that the mortgage in favour of Salim Ullah was madmade both by Mohd. Yusuf and Mohd. Hasan. This point may not help the appel lant. Even if Mohd. Hasan be deemed to be an owner of the property, only his admission regarding the oral gift would have been relevant but on the face of denial by Mohd. Yusuf, non-examination of Mohd. Hasan and a negative finding against the plaintiff on the question of possession this may not add any weight to the plaintiffs case. Another ground was taken m its appeal that there was an admission on the part of Mohd. Yusuf accepting the plaintiff to be a tenant in the house. This theory was not put forward in the plaint and no claim as a tenant was made out and the plea goes con trary to the existing pleas in the plaint. The alleged "ekrarnama between Neyaj Ahmad and Shamshul Haq showing certain boun daries would to have been used by Shamshul Haq as a person may not rely on his own admission. Another point was ventilated stating that the court below had completely ignored the commissioners report showing that Shamshul Haq and his family members were actually residing in the house in dis pute. I have referred to the judgment of the trial court to indicate that the trial court had taken up the report, discussed it and came to a conclusion that the report related to house no. 61 whereas the suit, admittedly, related to house No. 59. I have referred to the judgment of the trial court to indicate that the trial court had taken up the report, discussed it and came to a conclusion that the report related to house no. 61 whereas the suit, admittedly, related to house No. 59. The acquisition of right by adverse possession was also pleaded as one of the grounds. This plea should have been raised in the plaint itself so that adequate opportunity of the meeting the same was given to the other party. Moreover, simple possession for more than 12 years may not be a ground to infer adverse possession. The plaintiff had taken a plea of possession under a gift he had also shifted to another pleas of possession of as a tenant and if that be so a tenant cannot hold adversely to the interest of the owner. 10. The scope of a second appeal is limited. The suit of the plaintiff was for injunction and one of the primary material to decree a suit for injunction was that he was to prove his possession. The two courts below have also disbelieved of factum of oral gift. The judgments had duly con sidered the evidence and had discussed dif ferent aspects of it. The findings may not be interfered with unless a substantial question of law is prima facie shown to exist which would have affected such findings. 11. The appeal stands dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed. .