JUDGMENT Gangeshwar Prasad, J. - This second appeal arises out of a suit for possession of certain plots of agricultural land. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that their father Ram Briksh Rai had mortgaged the plots usufructuarily in favour of the predecessors of the defendants under various mortgage deeds and the defendants were in possession as mortgagees. It was further alleged that the mortgagees-defendants had lost their rights to continue in possession by virtue of Section 14 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as the plots were sir and khudkasht of the mortgagor on the dates on which the mortgages were executed and they were in the personal cultivation of the mortgagees on date immediately preceding the date of vesting. The defendants denied the allegations of the plaintiffs and contested their claim. The trial court decreed the suit; but on appeal the judgment of the trial court was reversed and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs then came up in appeal to this court. In order that the plaintiffs may succeed it is necessary for them to establish that the plots in suit were sir or khudkasht of the mortgagor on the dates of the mortgages and they were in the personal cultivation of the mortgagees on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting. But on those questions no finding had been given by the courts below and I accordingly remanded the case to the lower appellate court by my order dated December 1, 1964 and called for findings on the above two questions mentioned in the remand order; the findings of the lower appellate court have been received. 2. It has been found by the lower appellate court that the plots in suit were not sir or khudkasht of the mortgagor on the dates of the mortgages although they were in the personal cultivation of the mortgagees on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting. One of the essential requisites for the application of Section 14 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is, therefore, lacking and on the finding recorded by the lower appellate court on the first question the suit of the plaintiffs is clearly liable to be dismissed. One of the essential requisites for the application of Section 14 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is, therefore, lacking and on the finding recorded by the lower appellate court on the first question the suit of the plaintiffs is clearly liable to be dismissed. The reasons given by the lower appellate court in support of its findings have not been shown to be incorrect and I agree with the lower appellate court that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the plots were their si* or khudkasht on the dates of the mortgages, The suit has, therefore, been rightly dismissed. 3. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. The parties are, however, directed to bear their own costs in all the courts.