JUDGMENT

Kaul, J. - This is a plaintiffs appeal in a suit brought for possession of three plots of land (Nos. 66, 76 and 24) in Purah Kurmian, a hamlet of Islambari, The trial Court dismissed the suit with regard to plot Nos. 66 and 24, but gave a decree for possession over plot No. 76. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge against the decree in so far as it related to his claim with regard to plot Nos. 66 and 24, The defendants filed cross-objections against that part of the decree which related to plot No. 76. The plaintiffs appeal was dismissed and the cross-objections were allowed, with the result that the plaintiffs claim was dismissed in its entirety. Dissatisfied with this decision he comes up in second appeal.

2. According to the plaint allegations no building stood upon plots Nos. 66 and 76. The debris of an old house which stood on plot No. 66, and fell down in 1936, was still lying there The appellant's contention was that he war the proprietor of village Islambari and as the defendants had no right to retain possession of the land they should be ejected. With regard to plot No. 24 whereon a house stood at | the time of the institution of the suit, it was alleged that the plaintiff's riaya who owned the house left it and abandoned the village four or five years ago, and that the defendants had no right to the house in question, and even if they were found to be the owners of the material, the original riaya having abandoned the village, they had no right to keep the materials on the plaintiffs land.

3. With regard to plot No. 66, the defendants pleaded that it belonged to one Parbhu and that they were living in the house with him and with. his permission.

4. His regards plot No. 24 it was urged that the house which stood on this land be longed to one Mata Din at the time of the first regulars, settlement. Mata Din had two other brothers, Udai and Sukkha. Sukkha's son, Bhairon, was the husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendants Nos. 2 to 5. The house thus being their ancestral house, which had existed on this land for 75 years, they could not be ejected from it.

5. Concerning plot No. 76 the defence was that it was originally sold by one Mst. Lachmin to Lau who in his turn sold it to Bhairon on the 4th of March, 1929, before the plaintiff purchased the village, and that the defendants and Bhairon had been in possession of the house under their deed ever since and could not be ejected therefrom.

6. The appeal so far as it relates to plots Nos. c6 and 24 is easily disposed of. As regards the house on plot No. 66 it has been found by both the Courts below that it belongs to Parbhu and the present defendants are living in it with him and with his permission. Parbhu is not a party to this suit. An issue was framed by 'the trial Court whether he was or was-at a necessary party. It appears that the plaintiff appellant opposed his being impleaded as a party to this suit. Accordingly he was examined as a witness on behal of the defendants and has supported their case. In view of the findings of both the Courts below that the houses belong to Parbhu, who has been in possession of it for the last 30 years long before the plaintiff purchased the village, the suit as regards this land was rightly dismissed,

7. As to plot No. 24, the lower appellate Court has accepted the pedigree set up on behalf of the defendants. It further held that the house which stood on this land belonged to Mata Din (and not Manna as alleged by the plaintiff appellant) who was the brother of Sukha, grandfather of defendants 2 to 5. The only point urged against this finding of the lower appellate Court was that it had wrongly refused to make a presumption as regards the genuineness of Exs. 80 and 81 which showed that the house on plot No. 24 belonged to Manna or Manni Ram and not to Mata Din. Exs. 80 and 81 are certified copies of two sale deeds of 1875 and 1902 respectively. The * original of the first purports to have been executed by Manni Ram