JUDGMENT Iqbal Ahmad, C.J. and Sinha, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of a house. The plaintiff is admittedly the Zamindar of the rnauza in dispute. He came to Court with the story that the house belonged originally to one Kallu and on his death it reverted to him as Zamindar. His case definitely was that the village in dispute is a purely agricultural village. The defence, in the main, was that the house belonged not to Kallu but to a man named Hira Lal and that the defendant was a purchaser from him under a sale dated May 13, 1941. It was also pleaded that there was a custom in the village which validated such a transfer. The trial Court held that the house did not belong to Kallu but to Hira Lal. It also found in favour of such a custom. Before the lower appellate Court the only point in controversy was whether the custom had been established. The learned Judge agreed with the Court of first instance and found that the custom was proved. 2. In second appeal before us it is contended that the custom set up by the defendant has not been proved. To begin with, the plaintiff, as has already been said, definitely stated that the village in question was an agricultural village. This was not denied in the written statement. 3. If the village is an agricultural village, the plaintiff as a Zamindar is entitled to every inch of the land and Hira Lal could not make the transfer without the plaintiff's consent. The question is, whether, on the materials on the record, it can be said that the custom has been made out. It has been held in this Court that such a question is a mixed question of law and fact and it is open to this Court in second appeal to look into the facts, vide Nathwa v. Raghubans Narain Singh (1934) A W R 188. That was a converse case in which the Courts below had held that the custom had not been made out The important point is that the High Court considered itself free to look into the evidence. 4. The Learned Counsel for the respondent relies upon Syed Tajammul Husain Vs. That was a converse case in which the Courts below had held that the custom had not been made out The important point is that the High Court considered itself free to look into the evidence. 4. The Learned Counsel for the respondent relies upon Syed Tajammul Husain Vs. Banwari Lal and Others, AIR 1926 All 43 , in support of his contention that where there are a number of instances of transfers by a tenant, or a Rayyat, the consent of the Zamindar must be presumed. That case, to our mind, has no application to the facts of the present case. In the first place, the village in depute is an agricultural village and the incidents which should govern a non-agricultural village could have no application to the village in dispute. In the second place, an analysis of the various transfers leads to no definite result, According to the learned Judge there are 233 houses in this village which means that it is a very substantial village. There are on the record 51 sale-deeds. Out of them 3 were more than 30 years old on the date of the suit. The learned Judge, it may be noted, was not right in his finding that they were four. Of these three, the first was a very petty sale for Rs. 10 only. The second was a still more petty one of one room for Rs. 5. The third was also by no means a substantial sale. It was for a sum of Rs. 48 only. We, therefore, think that the three sale-deeds which were more than 30 years of age on the date of the suit did not furnish any evidence at all. The Zamindar might not have considered it worth his while to avoid them. There are 15 sale-deeds of over 12 years. They range from 1915 to 1929. Fourteen years do not, in our opinion constitute a sufficiently long period for the growth of a custom and these sale-deeds, therefore, do not afford sufficient evidence to establish a custom. There are 33 sale-deeds within 12 years of the date of the suit. They do not furnish any evidence at all because they are still liable to be defeated. The result is that the sale-deeds beyond the period of 12 years are 18 in number. There are 33 sale-deeds within 12 years of the date of the suit. They do not furnish any evidence at all because they are still liable to be defeated. The result is that the sale-deeds beyond the period of 12 years are 18 in number. Some of these are for a very small consideration and about the others there is no evidence as to what was their value. 5. The plaintiff is in law the owner of every inch of the village. The law is settled in these provinces that the tenant has no right to make a transfer of a house without the consent of the Zamindar. If the defendant in this case wanted to prove something in derogation of the rights of the plaintiff as a Zamindar. it was for him to establish affirmatively that the sale-deeds, having regard to the long stretch of years they covered and having regard to the value of the property, were such as to constitute sufficient evidence in favour of custom. We, therefore, think that the view taken by the Courts below is wrong. 6. Accordingly we allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and decree the plaintiff's suit with costs in all Courts.