( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suit was for injunction and in the alternative in case the Court held that the plaintiffs are not in possession, for delivery of possession as such.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs stand was that the plaintiffs are the owner in possession of the disputed plot and the trees standing thereon and the mutation is wrong and the land was wrongly recorded as Banjar. The defendants case was that their ancestors had planted the trees and they were owner in possession of plot No. 49 (area 19 decimals) having trees on the same and the trees were also planted by them and further that as a matter of precaution they secured a settlement of the plot from the Gaon Sabha after the abolition of zamindari.

( 3 ) THE trial Court framed a number of issues. It found in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. The first appellate Court also took similar view and dismissed the appeal. The findings are assailed in the second appeal.

( 4 ) THE points raised are, firstly, that the Courts below did not consider certain admissions and further that the view that under S. 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act the plaintiffs were es