JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23-8-1968. The dispute relates to a shop owned by an Evacuee which was under the management of the Custodian, Evacuee Properties. Ram Lal, father of the appellant and respondent no. 1 was a relative of Gujar Khan now in Pakistan. After the partition of the country in the year 1947, Ram Lal and his sons came to India and settled at Saharanpur. Father and the two sons had separated from each other and were doing their separate business. Ram Lal took the shop from the Custodian on rent. Later on, he left doing business at Saharanpur. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was filed by Ram Lal with the allegations that as his business at Saharanpur did not flourish he migrated to Nagpur and gave the shop to his son Sri Ram as his licencee, that Shri Ram entered into partnership on 23-10-1959 with Ram Gopal, defendant respondent no. 2, that thereafter he purchased the shop from the Custodian. On these allegations he sued for possession. Ram Gopal, respondent contested the suit on the grounds that in fact there took place no partnership between him and Sri Ram, that the shop was actually let out by Ram Lal to him and that to avoid ejectment by the Custodian sham partnership deed dated 23-10-1959 between him and Sri Ram was got written by Ramlal plaintiff. 2. Parties led oral and documentary evidence. Sri Ram tried to support the case by filing written statement in consonance with the allegations of the plaint, but he did not dare to enter into the witness box. 3. On an appraisal of the entire oral and documentary evidence, both the, Courts below found as a fact in favour of Ram Gopal, respondent no. 2. Consequently the suit brought by Ramlal was dismissed. Ram Lal died during the pendency of the appeal before the District Judge. He was substituted by Bhagat Ram, present appellant. 4. Sri K.L. Grover, learned Counsel for the appellant uged that the Courts below could hot go behind the partnership deed dated 23-10-1959 so far as the document stands the contention is undoubtedly correct, but the Courts below have accepted the allegation of the respondent relating to the execution of this partnership deed. 4. Sri K.L. Grover, learned Counsel for the appellant uged that the Courts below could hot go behind the partnership deed dated 23-10-1959 so far as the document stands the contention is undoubtedly correct, but the Courts below have accepted the allegation of the respondent relating to the execution of this partnership deed. Both the Courts below have come to, the conclusion that Ram Gopal was actually let in by Ram Lal and that to save ejectment by the Custodian, the partnership deed was shown to have been executed by Sri Ram and Ram Gopal. The Custodian gave a notice to Ram Lal that he had actually let out the shop to Ram Gopal. In reply to this notice Ram Lal stated that he had entered into partnership with Ram Gopal (Vide Ex. A-5). Ram Lal tried to explain this, statement on the ground that he had done so to save himself from ejectment from the shop. This explanation has not been accepted. Obviously, it cannot be accepted. The deceased plaintiff easily say that he had given the shop in his son as licensee and that his son had entered into partnership with Ram Gopal, In that case also his reply to the notice of the Custodian would have been alright. The terms of the partnership deed clearly indicated that it was a sort of sub-letting and not a partnership. In the result, the contention of Sri Grover does not carry force. Both the Courts below have been a concurrent finding of fact which cannot be disturbed in this Second Appeal. 5. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Costs in this Court on parties.