JUDGMENT G.S. Sial, Member. - This is a defendants second appeal arising out of a suit under section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides. In view of the finding recorded by the trial court, the substitution applications are allowed. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit with the allegation that the property in dispute had been acquired by their common ancestor, Akbar Khan. The pedigree is given in the judgment of the Additional Commissioner and is being referred to Mohd. Hussain and Alam Shah filed suit against the defendants including one Khalil, defendant no. 13 alleging that they are entitled to 2/9th share in the disputed land alleging that they were sons of Akbar Khan, 6 from one mother and 3 from another mother. The defence was that the plaintiffs along with defendant no. 13 are not the sons of Akbar Khan and that Bhagwantia was a Hindu lady, Bhind by caste and married to Kamaldahri and that they are the sons of Kamaldhari. There was previous litigation between the parties in civil court for demolition of the house and injunction. The trial court after considering the evidence on record and also placing reliance on the judgment of the civil court held that Akbar Khan had 9 sons i.e. Smt. Bhagwantia alias Asmat was his wife and decreed the suit. The lower appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal before the Board by the defendants. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted two points, in support of the appellant's claim. Firstly, that the present suit should have been stayed under section 10 C.P.C. inasmuch as the Civil suit was pending and is till pending and thus there is no final decision in that case. The trial court has based its finding entirely on the judgment of the district Judge who has held that Akbar Khan has 9 sons. This judgment was appealed against before the Hon'ble High Court who have remanded the case to the district Judge for a fresh decision. Thus there is no final decision of the Civil Court in this case. He submitted that the judgment of the High Court in respect of their being brothers in not final since the main suit was for injunction. Thus there is no final decision of the Civil Court in this case. He submitted that the judgment of the High Court in respect of their being brothers in not final since the main suit was for injunction. The appellants did not have a right of appeal since no decree had been granted against them. The judgment of the district Judge has been set aside. He referred to A.I.R. 1962 (S.C.) 527 and stated the since the matter was pending in the civil court the present suit should have stayed under Section 10 C.P.C. Secondly he submitted that the lower appellate court had not applied its mind at all and has merely confirmed the judgment of the trial court without going through the evidence on record. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents referred to the judgment of the trial court and stated that the trial court has not only relied on judgment of the civil court in giving its findings but has considered all the documentary and oral evidence on record and then has recorded a finding that they are the sons of Akbar Khan Further the findings of the District Judge that they are brothers had been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court and this finding has not been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. He referred to 1968 R.D. 470 at page 482 in this behalf. He also submitted that the lower appellate court has also considered all the documentary and oral evidence on coming to the conclusion that the finding of trial court that all the 9 brothers are sons of Akbar Khan. He, therefore, submitted that the suit of the plaintiff has rightly been decreed by the courts below and no interference in second appeal is called for. On the point of suit being stayed under section 10 C.P.C, he submitted that since the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit for partition, this argument has no basis. 6. I have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the records of the case. The trial court after going into the evidence in detail tendered by the parties and after evaluating it came to the conclusion that Akbar Khan was the common ancestor of the parties and that the plaintiffs were the sons of Akbar Khan. 6. I have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the records of the case. The trial court after going into the evidence in detail tendered by the parties and after evaluating it came to the conclusion that Akbar Khan was the common ancestor of the parties and that the plaintiffs were the sons of Akbar Khan. He has discussed the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence tendered by the parties and then observed as follows:- "After considering the entire evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff and Khalil are the sons of Akbar Khan and the pedigree set up by them is correct". The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellate court has not discussed the evidentiary value is not correct. The Additional Commissioner after considering the evidentiary value of all the various pieces of evidence concluded that the plaintiffs along with defendant no. 13 were the sons of Akbar Khan. The further contention of the learned counsel that the revenue courts have adopted the decision of the District Judge in a suit for injunction is not well taken. I am of the opinion that they have come to this conclusion after a careful appreciation of the entire evidence on record, thus, there is a concurrent finding of fact on the point that the plaintiffs along with defendant no. 13 are brothers of the other defendants and are the sons of Akbar Khan and there is no reason for me to disturb this finding. The District Judge has come to this conclusion independently and this finding has not been upset by the Hon'ble High Court, as has been sought to be made by the learned counsel. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shanker, 1968 R.D 470 has given the direction of the learned District Judge observing that he has not thought it proper to give the question of granting relief for injunction "the consideration it deserved" and to discuss the evidence of the parties with regard to the balance of convenience in case the relief was granted or refused. The Hon'ble High Court have not upset the finding with regard to the parties being brothers, as held by the District Judge. The Hon'ble High Court have not upset the finding with regard to the parties being brothers, as held by the District Judge. The case was thus remanded only for deciding the relief for injunction and there appears to be no intention to upset the finding that the parties were co-sharers. 7. In view of the above, I find that this appeal has no force as the point to be decided is concluded by finding of both the courts below. The appeal is dismissed.