JUDGMENT 1. - This is a plaintiffs' second appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a house on the allegation that the house belongs to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' father Kalu had permitted the defendants to reside in it on the condition that whenever required to vacate the house they would do so. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' ownership to the house as well as the alleged permissive occupation. 2. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendants the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bundi dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal. 3. Admittedly there is no documentary evidence in support of the plaintiffs' title to the house or the alleged permissive occupation by the defendants. The plaintiffs examined Chhotu (PW 1), and three more witnesses: Shanker, Goru and Ganesh. Their evidence has been fully discussed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and he was right in holding it wholly insufficient for proving the plaintiffs' title to the house in dispute. The plaintiff have also miserably failed to prove that the defendants were in possession of the house with the permission of their father Kalu. The finding arrived at by the learned Senior Civil Judge is one of fact and cannot be interfered with in second appeal. 4. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Since nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents to oppose the appeal, there will be no order as to costs. *******