JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - This is plaintiffs' second appeal. The plaintiffs brought a suit with the allegation that the land in dispute, which now comprised of plot Nos. 133, 134, 139 and 141, was the grave-yard of Mohammedans of village Jamalpur Kirat since time immemorial. In the said grave-yard there were trees and their wood was used for burial of dead bodies. This land became insufficient for the grave-yard. So the consolidation authorities allotted some land towards north of the existing grave-yard for that purpose. The land in dispute some how by mistake was not recorded grave-yard in the revenue papers. The defendants wanted to take possession over the disputed land and to make their constructions thereon. They also interfered in the burial of the dead bodies by the plaintiff's, hence the suit. 2. The defendants denied the plaintiffs case and inter alia pleaded that the land in dispute was their grove and they were in possession thereof since a long time. The land in dispute was declared as defendants grove in consolidation proceedings and, as such, the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Both the courts below have on appraisement of evidence produced in the case, concurrently found that the defendants have succeeded in showing that they were the Bhumidhars of plot Nos. 134 and 139 and that the plaintiffs have failed to show that any portion of plot Nos. 133 and 141 was being used as grave-yard. In the result the plaintiffs suit stood dismissed. Being aggrieved. The plaintiffs have come up in second appeal before this Court. 3. So far as plot Nos. 134 and 139 are concerned, there is a definite finding that these two plots have been held to be the Bhumidhari plots of the defendants in proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The claim of the plaintiffs in respect of these two plots, therefore stands barred under-the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that there was no such finding that the defendants were the Bhumidhars of plot Nos. The claim of the plaintiffs in respect of these two plots, therefore stands barred under-the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that there was no such finding that the defendants were the Bhumidhars of plot Nos. 133 and 141 and as such, their claim in respect of those two plots was not barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and in the circumstances the courts below should have declared at least those two plots as the grave-yard of those Muslims. The claim of the plaintiffs in respect of these two plots had been rejected on the ground that the evidence produced on their behalf did not show that these two plots were being used as the grave-yard of the Muslim. In support of their case that plot Nos. 133 and 141 were being used as grave-yard of the Muslims, the plaintiffs merely relied upon certain oral evidence produced in the case which has not been found to be reliable by the lower appellate court. The finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that plot Nos. 133 and 141 were the grave-yard of the Muslims is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in a second appeal. 4. I find no merit in this second appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.