JUDGMENT

Kishch, J - I have heard these two appeals together and they may be dealt with together. There is a Jain temple of comparatively recent construction in mohalla Ramhnipura, Bahraich. Immediately to the south of it is a plot No. 4363 on which stands a house and to the west of this plot, that is, at the southwest corner of the temple, is another plot No. 4373 on which stands a house. In 1929 it became necessary for the criminal Court to take proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., on account of a dispute having arisen with regard to possession of the said plots between the managing committee of the temple and certain Mahomedan residents of the locality. The result of these proceedings was that plot No. 4363 was held to be in the possession of the temple, but the Magistrate was unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties was in possession of plot No. 4373, and accordingly attached this plot until a competent Court had determined the rights of the parties thereto. On 21st May 1930 the committee of the temple instituted a suit out of which Appeal No. 300 of 1931 arises for a declaration that the temple is the owner of the plot No. 4373, and for possession. On 24th July 1930 the other party, who may be referred to for the sake of brevity as the Maulvis, instituted a similar suit with regard to plot No. 4363. In both the suits each party denied the other's title and set up title in himself and also pleaded adverse possession.

2. Both suits were decided by the same Munsif who decreed the temple's suit and dismissed that of the Maulvis. The Maulvis appealed in both cases and the two appeals were heard by different Subordinate Judges. The appeal of the Maulvis in respect of plot No. 4373 was allowed and the suit of the temple was dismissed. The appeal of the Maulvis in respect of plot No. 4363 was dismissed. Second appeals have been preferred in both cases. It is not impossible that if the same Subordinate Judge had heard both the appeals he would have decided both cases in favour of the same party, but what this Court has to determine in second appeal is whether there is ground for interference with either judgment taken by itself.

3. I shall deal first with Appeal No. 201 of 1932 which relates to plot No. 4363. In this case all the findings of fact of the trial Court were upheld in appeal by the lower appellate Court. These findings were that plot No. 4363 was parti at the time of the first Reguar Settlement. One Sukhai, who owned a house on plot No. 4373, had extended his house or built another house over plot No. 4363 as well. On his death his widow Mt. Martunni entered into possession. The plaintiffs (the Maulvis) failed to prove the sale deed alleged to have been executed in their favour by Mt. Martunni to be genuine while the temple had proved the sale in its favour by Mt. Ganga, daughter of Mt. Martunni. Therefore on the question of title the Maulvis failed and the temple succeeded. The Maulvis had failed to prove their possession within limitation. In the case of the findings of fact, that the sale deed on which the plaintiffs relied to prove their title had not been satisfactorily proved and that they had failed to prove their possession within limitation, it is clear that this Court cannot interfere in second appeal, and Appeal No. 201 of 1932 is accordingly dismissed with costs.

4. With regard to Appeal No. 300 of 1931 the position is a little more complicated, but in my opinion this appeal must also fail in view of the findings of fact of the lower appellate Court. The plaintiffs (the temple) in this case relied on the same sale deed executed by Mt. Ganga to prove their title to plot No. 4373 as well as plot No. 4363 while the defendants (the Maulvis) relied on a sale deed executed by one Mangal Khan at an earlier date. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard this appeal did not accept the title of Sukhai to the house on plot No. 4373 and held that Mangal Khan had. transferred this plot to the Maulvis