ORDER Mahesh Chandra, J. - This a Plaintiffs' second appeal against the dismissal of their suit by both the courts below. 2. Kunj Behari and Ram Swarup Appellants filed a suit against Sripal Singh, Respondent, for possession over plots Nos. 155 and 429/2 in village Kahmariya Mahariya of district Sitapur alleging themselves to be Sirdars of the two plots. They further alleged that the Respondent had no right and had taken illegal possession of the plots in suit in November, 1954 in collusion, with the village Patwari. The Appellants also claimed Rs. 100/- as damages for illegal possession and a permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from interfering with the Plaintiffs possession over the plots in suit. The following pedigree was given in defence by the Respondent: Ram Bux Singh Umroa Singh Daulat Singh Raghubar Singh (Died issueless) Madho Singh (Died issueless) Girdhar Singh Sripal Singh Mahabir Singh (Died issueless) 3. It was alleged that Mahabir Singh obtained a decree for redemption against the Appellants and obtained possession of the plots in suit in execution thereof in 1947. The Respondent further alleged that since the death of Mahabir Singh he continued in possession of the plots in suit and that the Appellants had no right or title to them. It was further pleaded that the Appellants were not in possession, that the suit was time-barred and that they had not suffered any damage. 4. The issue regarding tenancy rights was referred to the Revenue Court which found that the Appellants were not the 'Sirdars' of the land in suit and that the Respondent was a 'Sirdar'. The learned Munsif found that the Appellants were not in possession within limitation and dismissed the Appellants' suit. In first appeal, the Civil Judge, Sitapur upheld the view of the Revenue Court on the question of tenancy and of the learned Munsif on the question of possession and confirmed the judgment of the trial court. 5. It was admitted between the parties that the plots in suit were mortgaged with possession by Mutan Singh and Mahabir Singh in favour of Lalta Prasad, Gauri Shanker and Suraj Bali and that the mortgagee rights of Lalta Prasad and Gauri Shanker were sold to Chunni Lal. The suit for redemption was filed on 15-1-1946 and decreed. In execution under the warrant of delivery of possession Ex. A 4, possession was delivered to mortgagor by Ex. The suit for redemption was filed on 15-1-1946 and decreed. In execution under the warrant of delivery of possession Ex. A 4, possession was delivered to mortgagor by Ex. A 5, as shown by the report of the process server. After a consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the Respondent and not the Appellants, was in possession of the plots in suit since redemption. This finding of fact was confirmed by the first appellate court. The concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below are not vitiated by error of law nor can they be said to be perverse. There is no reason to interfere with these concurrent findings of fact. 6. The Respondent would then be an intermediary and in possession of the plots in suit as Khudkasht and would be entitled to retain possession as a Bhumidhar thereof u/s 18 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Appellants claiming Sirdari rights did not apply u/s 232 of the Act within 30 months from the date of vesting. The present suit u/s 209 of the Act has also been filed more than two years after the date of vesting. The result is that the Appellants are not entitled to any relief and the suit was rightly dismissed by both the courts below. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.