As per case facts, the plaintiff's legal heirs (originally Ram Gopal) filed a suit for possession of land and damages against the defendant's legal heirs (originally Rameshwar), alleging encroachment. The ... plaintiff claimed title and asserted the cause of action arose in 1994 and again in 2002 after a revenue court dismissal. The defendant contended a partition occurred in 1952/1954-55. The Trial Court decreed the suit, finding it within limitation. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this, stating the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiff knew about the defendant's possession since 1961-62. The question arose whether the First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation by reversing the Trial Court's judgment. Finally, the High Court held that the First Appellate Court was justified. The plaintiff had knowledge of hostile possession since 1952 or 1961-62, and subsequent revenue proceedings do not extend limitation. The suit was hopelessly barred as the law assists the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.