JUDGMENT Sinha, J. - These are two appeals by the Defendants and arise out of two suits for possission. The property in dispute consists of two plots Nos. 1175 1177. Plot No. 1175 is a compound known as Narotamwaia. The Plaintiffs claimed to be their owners. Their case is that a portion of the land was sold by the Plaintiffs, but the bulk of it still remains with them. The complaint is that Tullan, son of Kundaa and grandson of Narotam, occupied a house as their ryot but sold it, without any right, on March 14, 1933, to the Defendant, Ram Sahai, without their knowledge, They claimed possession of the land on the ground that, according to the custom prevalent there, the transaction was not permissible. The defence was that there was no such custom and that Tullan had an absolute right of transfer. This was suit No. 451 of 1941. 2. The connected suit against Chhote was brought on similar a legations and was resisted on similar pleas. 3. The property in d spute lies in a part of the town of Bulandshahr, known as Sari Goshain. The learned Munsif found that the Plaintiffs had failad to prove that the plots in dispute lay with their land or that they were their owners. He also found that the custom pleaded by the Plaintiffs did not exist. In the result, he dismissed both the suits. On appeal, the learned Additional Civil Judge disagreed with the learned Munsif on both the points. He found that the plots in dispute lay within the ambit of the Plaintiffs' proprietary rights. He also found that the custom prevailed in the locality. The Defendant has come to this Court in second appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant at great length and have given my anxious consideration to the case I have come to the conclusion that the judgment under appeal is correct and must stand. 5. Bulandshahr is one of the towns in these provinces. Sarai Goshain was founded about two hundred and seventy years ago. The learned Munsif found that it is not an agricultural village and has all the appearances of a Mohalla inhabited by lawyers, doctors and others, who flourish in a town or a city. He also found that this Mohalla was never distinct or separate from the town of Bulandshahr. Sarai Goshain was founded about two hundred and seventy years ago. The learned Munsif found that it is not an agricultural village and has all the appearances of a Mohalla inhabited by lawyers, doctors and others, who flourish in a town or a city. He also found that this Mohalla was never distinct or separate from the town of Bulandshahr. He further found that Bulandshahr itself was converted into a municipality in the year 1866. These were the reasons which weighed with him in coming to his conslusion that such a custom could not prevail in the particular area. The learned Additional Civil Judge, however, found that, in view of the entry in the wajib-ull-arz and in view of a number of judgments on the record, the custom must be deemed to be established. I have no doubt in my mind that this conclusion is correct. 6. The wajib-ul- arz consists of three sections. The first relates to houses, belonging to ancient owners, the second to ryots settled by zamindars or inns and miscellaneous houses; the last portion deals with the resumed muafi, nazul, etc., etc. It appears to me that the triai of the case proceeded on the assumption that the house in dispute fell in the second category and it is not open to the learned Counsel for the Appellant to go back on that position. It is contended by him that it was admitted by the Plaintiff in his deposition that the sarai in question was never separate from the town of Bulandshahr and it was not open to the lower appellate Court to spell out a new case. I shall assume that he is right and the description of the place given by the learned Munsif is a true description I, however, feel that the judgments hold the field. Not by mere presumptions raised by the physical feature, the history or geography of the place could the scale be turned in favour of the Defendant. He should have led positive evidence, but this he has failed to do. 7. It cannot be denied that judicial decisions constitute the best evidence in a case of such a character. In Royt's Customs and Customary Law in British India (1911) at page 580 it is said: Though judicial decisions are not necessary for the establishment of a custom, yet they are certainly the most satisfactory evidence of it. 7. It cannot be denied that judicial decisions constitute the best evidence in a case of such a character. In Royt's Customs and Customary Law in British India (1911) at page 580 it is said: Though judicial decisions are not necessary for the establishment of a custom, yet they are certainly the most satisfactory evidence of it. Instances of an enforcement of a custom are good evidence.... 8. Indeed, their Lordships of the judicial Committee in a case which went from this Court, Ajai Verma v. Vijai Kumari 1939 A W R (PC) 1, have gone the length of holding that The proof of actual instances of such a custom taking effect is not necessary. 9. The Plaintiffs in this case stand on surer ground by placing before the Court a large number of instances in which the custom pleaded by them has been recognised in judicial decisions. It is not necessary to deal with all the judgments on the record. I shall allude to just a few. They range from a period between 1906 and 1941. The first judgment is of November 28, 1906. It is a judgment by a Munsif. It was a case of a sale by ryot in this very Mohalla. The second is a judgment of the 4th of March, 1908. It is again a case of sale. The third is a judgment of the 17th of February, 1920. The facts of the case do not seem to be clear, but the trend of judgment indicates that the custom was upheld. The last judgment is of the 30th of March 1938. 10. I have made no reference to a number of other judgments, which deal with the question of abandonment, inasmuch as the learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that they can not afford a proper guide for the determination in hand, although the contention does not necessarily command my assent. The area in dispute may not be an agricultural, but the question still remains whether it possess some of the incidents of an agricultural village, one of them being prohibition against transfer by a ryot. The instances, which deal with the case of a transfer by a ryot, are quite enough to establish the custom. The area in dispute may not be an agricultural, but the question still remains whether it possess some of the incidents of an agricultural village, one of them being prohibition against transfer by a ryot. The instances, which deal with the case of a transfer by a ryot, are quite enough to establish the custom. I am of opinion that, if there were no other evidence on the record than the judgments referred to, which are all in favour of the custom, the Plaintiffs must be deemed to have discharged the burden of proof. As against this the Defendants have, as I have already said, nothing to fall back upon except presumptions. I think the view taken by the Court below is right and I dismiss the appeals but, as the Respondents have not entered appearance, I make no order as to costs. Leave to appeal under the Letters Patent is refused.