Kumaraswamy Sastri, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant. His case is that the 1st defendant and some others were members of a joint Hindu family ; that on the death of the 1st defendants husband he became solely entitled to the property ; that the 1st defendant is in wrongful possession of the items mentioned in the plaint. His claim is for a declaration of the plaintiffs right to the items mentioned in Schedules A, B and C of the plaint, for delivery of possession for injunction and other reliefs.

2. The case of the defendant is that her husband was not a member of the joint family with the plaintiff on the date of his death, but that he was a divided member of the family and he was enjoying certain properties in his own right, and on his death he is in possession of and them in her right.

3. The Subordinate Judge has found on the evidence adduced that the defendants husband was divided in status and that she was in enjoyment of the property and dismissed the suit.

4. The appellants vakil frankly admits that he cannot dispute the correctness of the finding, but his contention is, having regard to Section 92 of the Evidence Act, the finding is not admissible because there was