JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwal, J. - This is plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-appellants over the plots in dispute. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 25-9-1964. In appeal the lower appellate court also agreed with the view of the trial court and dismissed the appeal on 16-10-1965. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed in this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings arrived at by the lower appellate court. It is not necessary to know any detail in regard to the question as to whether Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, bars the suit or not, because both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff-appellants were not in possession of the plots in dispute. In case the plaintiffs-appellants are not in possession of the plots in dispute, no relief could possibly have been granted in both the suits in favour of the appellants. 3. Under issue No. 4, the trial court has found that the plaintiffs-appellants are not in possession of plots in dispute. In fact the respondents are in possession. This finding has been confirmed by the lower appellate court. The finding that the plaintiffs-appellants are not in possession over the plots in dispute is a finding of fact cannot be interfered with in this second appeal. 4. In result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.