JUDGMENT - G.N. VAIDYA, J.:---The appellants were the plaintiffs in a suit filed by them on August 11, 1964, against the defendant, Jannatbi Ahmed Kothimbire, to recover possession of the suit premises and arrears of rent. The plaintiffs alleged that they owned the suit house and the agreed rent was Rs. 12/- per month. They claimed to have purchased the suit property on October 20, 1962, from the original owner of the property, one Daudkhan Mohamedkhan Pathan. The defendant was alleged to be the tenant of the said Daudkhan. The plaintiffs gave a notice to the defendant on February 24, 1964, to vacate the premises but the defendant denied the title of the plaintiffs by her reply. She filed a Suit No. 855 of 1962 against Daudkhan for the specific performance of the agreement of sale executed by Daudkhan in favour of the defendant and the said suit was dismissed on January 23, 1964. The plaintiffs claimed to have a valid title to the suit property and submitted that they were entitled to recover the rent from the defendant. 2. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the Civil Suit No. 855 of 1962 was pending, that Daudkhan was never a possession of the suit property and that defendant had become owner by adverse possession. 3. In view of these contentions, 14 issues were framed and considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sholapur, found that the plaintiffs proved the title to the suit property and held that the tenancy month started from 20th of every month; and passed a decree against the defendant directing her to pay Rs. 245-60 and to restore the possession of the premises with mesne profits. 4. The said judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge on July 31, 1965, were set aside by the Extra Assistant Judge, Sholapur, in an appeal filed by the defendant on January 5, 1967. The learned Assistant Judge found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the title of Daudkhan to the suit property or their possession of the suit property within 12 years before the suit and hence the appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs suit was dismissed with costs. The said decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge is challenged in the above second appeal. 5. The said decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge is challenged in the above second appeal. 5. Placing very strong reliance on the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 855 of 1962; and the evidence given by the defendant in that case, Mr. Jahagirdar, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, submitted that the learned Assistant Judge erred in law in setting aside the carefully recorded findings of the trial Court. I do not see how this can make the finding of the learned Assistant Judge an error of law which would justify interference by this Court with his findings. Admissions in pleadings in a previous suit are at the highest relevant and not conclusive proof of the matters admitted in view of section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act. 6. The learned Assistant Judge has carefully considered the facts and circumstances in which the defendant had claimed a decree for specific performance in that suit against Daudkhan and had obtained a decree for the refund of the amount, which she has paid under the agreement to sell the suit property to her. The learned Assistant Judge held that as even in that case the defendant had contended that she was in possession of the property since before 20th years, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to examine Daudkhan to show in what capacity she was in possession of the suit property. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant was in possession of the premises as a tenant of Daudkhan. 7. It was necessary for the plaintiffs to establish their title. There was not a title of evidence on the record except Civil Suit No. 855 of 1962, to show that Daudkhan had let out the premises to the defendant, or Daudkhan had himself any title to the suit property, or was in possession of the suit property within 12 years before the suit. In these circumstances, the Assistant Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs title to the suit property was not proved. That, in my view, is a finding of fact based on appreciation of the evidence, including the documentary evidence relating to Civil Suit No. 855 of 1962, and the deposition of the defendant. It is an inference of fact from other facts on the record and will not interfered with by this Court in second appeal. 8. That, in my view, is a finding of fact based on appreciation of the evidence, including the documentary evidence relating to Civil Suit No. 855 of 1962, and the deposition of the defendant. It is an inference of fact from other facts on the record and will not interfered with by this Court in second appeal. 8. Similarly, the finding of the learned Assistant Judge that neither the plaintiffs nor Daudkhan were ever in possession of the suit property within 12 years before the suit, is a pure and simple finding of fact based on the absence of any evidence to show that Daudkhan was the landlord, who let the premises to the defendant. The learned Assistant Judge has pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence of the alleged commencement of the tenancy of the defendant and there was not a single rent receipt produced by the plaintiffs. The finding of the learned Assistant Judge with regard to the possession is proper and, therefore, is a finding of fact which will not be interfered with in Second Appeal. 9. The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. It seems that the parties to this appeal were both made their amounts by Daudkhan and both of them had grievances which led them to the Court. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs in the second appeal. ___