ORDER : This revision arises out of a Small Cause suit No.39 of 1950 which was dismissed by Small Cause Judge, Ujjain, on 26-9-1950. One Devlal brought the suit against Ramotar for arrears of rent amounting to Rs.357/-plus interest on it. The suit was brought as. an heir to the property of Jaganath who had given the house on rent to Ramotar. Defendant admitted the Tenancy of Jaganath, but pleaded that the plaintiff was not the heir of Jaganath and that in consideration of the rent he had been supplying ½ seer of milk daily to Surajbai, the widow of Jaganath. The Small Cause Judge, Ujjain held that plaintiff was not the heir of Jaganath, and, that Surajbai is the real successor of Jaganath. Aggrieved by this the plaintiff has filed this revision. 2. In - 'Duraiswami Nadar v. Sivanupandia Nadar', AIR 1944 Mad 181 (A) it has been held that under S.25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (the section under which this revision has been filed) the High Court cannot constitute itself a court of appeal. In - 'Bengal N.W. Ry. v. Manorath Bhagat', AIR 1925 All 172 (B) it has been held that unless there was no evidence before the Judge to support the finding or unless the finding was impossible or perverse one, it is unfair to interfere on the revision side. 3. What I have to decide in this case is whether the plaintiff is the heir of Jaganath or not? This is a question of fact and finding (of?) the Court below not being perverse or obviously wrong, I see no interference by way of revision. 4. Revision rejected with costs.