JUDGMENT T.S.Mishra, J. - This appeal by the defendants arises in the following circumstances : 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit with the allegation that he has a house in the village in question with a Sehan towards the west thereof. He had enclosed the Sehan with a boundary wall and had constructed troughs and Charan for his cattle. The defendants had no concern with the said Sehan and the boundary wall but they forcibly and illegally demolished the southern portion of the boundary wall in the absence of the plaintiff, hence the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession on and from re-constructing his boundary wall. The suit was resisted by the defendants, inter alia, on the grounds that as a result of a private partition between Ram Das, the father of the plaintiff and the ancestors of the defendants the portion of the house ABCD and DEFG fell to the share of defendant no. 1 and his brothers while the portion of the house ABCGHI as shown in the site plan given at the foot of the written statement was allotted to the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the tiled roof house DEFG which had fallen to the share of the defendant no. 1 had fallen down for want of repairs. The father of the plaintiff had executed a memorandum of partition on 30th September, 1916, which would also disclose that the disputed Sehan belonged to the defendants appellants. The suit was also said to be barred by time. The trial court placing reliance on the memorandum of partition (Ex. A-1) dated 30th September, 1916, and the other evidence on the record, found that the plaintiff had no concern with the southern portion of the land. Issue of limitation was not pressed. The suit was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved by that decision, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate court below reversed the finding recorded by the trial court. It held that the memorandum of partition (Ex. A-1) was not reliable inasmuch as it purported to bear the thumb mark of Ram Das whereas Ram Das was a literate person and had signed on two documents on the record and that even the contents of the document (Ex. A-1) did not reconcile with the statement of Raghunath Prasad (D.W. 1). A-1) was not reliable inasmuch as it purported to bear the thumb mark of Ram Das whereas Ram Das was a literate person and had signed on two documents on the record and that even the contents of the document (Ex. A-1) did not reconcile with the statement of Raghunath Prasad (D.W. 1). It therefore, held that the disputed walls were the boundary walls of the Sehan land belonging to the plaintiff. The appeal was therefore, allowed and the suit was decreed. Against that decision the defendants have come up in appeal. 3. For the appellants it was urged that the appellate court below had misconstrued the memorandum of partition (Ex. A-1) and it erred in not placing reliance on it. It was urged that it was abundantly proved that the said memorandum of partition (Ex. A-1) was executed by Ram Das and that it bore his thumb mark. The two documents on the basis of which the appellate court below had observed that the said memorandum of partition was not a genuine document were executed long after the execution of Ex. A-1 and the learned counsel submitted that the said documents could not, therefore, be relied upon to hold that Ram Das was a literate person. In this connection it has to be noticed that Raghunath Prasad (D.W.1) had stated that the memorandum of partition (Ex A-1) was executed and thumb marked by Ram Das in his presence and that he identified the thumb impression of Ram Das. This statement was refuted by the plaintiff in his deposition. He deposed that his father Ram Das was a literate person and he never put his thumb impression on any document. Whenever he was required to sign he put his signature on it. There is thus oath against bath. We have, therefore, to see which oath is to be preferred. The statement of Raghunath Prasad is not supported by any other evidence whether oral or documentary. On the other hand, the statement of the plaintiff finds corroboration from the two documents (Exs. 1 and 3). It is true that both the aforesaid documents were executed after a few years of the execution of the alleged memorandum of partition (Ex. A-1). But the fact remains that Ram Das had put his signature on the two documents (Exs. On the other hand, the statement of the plaintiff finds corroboration from the two documents (Exs. 1 and 3). It is true that both the aforesaid documents were executed after a few years of the execution of the alleged memorandum of partition (Ex. A-1). But the fact remains that Ram Das had put his signature on the two documents (Exs. 1 and 3) within a period of 7 to 9 years of the alleged memorandum of partition. There was no dispute then existing and there was no reason for Ram Das or the plaintiff to prepare document with a view to destroy the genuiness of the memorandum of partition. It could not be pointed out that in the year 1923 or 1927 a dispute had arisen between the parties with regard to the Sehan or any built up portion of the house in question and that Ram Das had with a view to give colour to his case signed the documents (Exs. 1 and 3) so that the genuiness of the document (Ex 1) should be put in jeopardy. The plaintiff's testimony was, therefore, rightly relied upon by the appellate court below. There is one more circumstance which weighed with the appellate court below in discarding the testimony of Raghunath Prasad (D.W.1). Raghunath Prasad had stated in his deposition before the court below that Bardaur and the room in question were obtained one year after the alleged partition on payment of compensation of Rs. 50/- whereas in the alleged memorandum of partition it was recited that Thakur Prasad and his brothers had got the said room and Bardaur in partition and they were in possession thereof. The two statements one made before the court by the defendant no. 1 and the other contained in Ex. A-1 were, therefore, in compatible with each other. In these circumstances, the appellate court below rightly held that the disputed walls were the boundary walls of the Sehan land belonging to the plaintiff. The finding recorded by the appellate court below is based on evidence which is neither perverse nor illegal and I see no reason to disturb the same. 4. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs.