JUDGMENT R.S. Singh, J.- This is a defendant's second appeal against the decree and jugdment dated 12-4-1971 of the Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad affirming that of the trial court. 2. The suit giving rise to the present second appeal was filed for recovery of possession over two houses in suit and also for recovery of Rs 450/- as damages for wrongful use and occupation from defendants No. 1-3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the two houses in dispute formerly belonged to Smt. Shahzadi Begam, sister of the plaintiff. House No. 28/D-10 was given to her by her husband by a registered deed of gift in 1925 and the other house No. 29/D-10 was purchased by her in 1940 after the death of her husband in or about 1938. Therefore. Smt. Shahzadi Begam was the sole owner of the aforesaid two houses. According to the plaintiff's case house 28/D-10 was in the tenancy of Ishtiaq Husain, defendant No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month and house No. 29/D-10 was in the tenancy of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month. These tenants continued till the death of Smt. Shahzadi Begam in 1955. After her death defendant No. 2 installed defendant No. 1 in the house in his tenancy without the permission of the plaintiff Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 put defendant No. 3, Sharafat Husain in the tenancy of the house which was in their tenancy. According to the plaintiff's case the rent from 1-7-1955 remained in arrears from defendant No. 1 and defendants Nos. 4 and 5. The plaintiff sent a notice to defendant No. 1. In reply defendant No. 1 alleged that those houses were given to him by Smt. Shazadi Begum long ago and ever since he has been in possession of the aforesaid houses. The plaintiff therefore, did not take the houses from Smt. Shahzadi Begum. It was further alleged in the notice that defendant No. 3 was the sub-tenant of defendant No. 1 Shaukat Husain in house No. 29/D-10 and defendant No. 2 had a Bhatti in house No 28/D-10 with the permission of defendant No. 1. Therefore, the plaintiff sent notice to defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 terminating their tenancies and claiming possession from defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 3. The suit was contested by defendants Nos. Therefore, the plaintiff sent notice to defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 terminating their tenancies and claiming possession from defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 3. The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. They filed a joint written statement. According to Shaukat Husain, Smt. Shahzadi Begam made an oral gift of both the houses in his favour and since then he is in exclusive possession of the same as owner. House No. 29/D-10 was let out to defendants Nos. 4 and 5. They lived about three years and thereafter vacated the same. It was thereafter let out to his brother defendant No. 3 who is in occupation of the same as a tenant of defendant No. 1. It was also pleaded by the defendants that the suit is barred by Articles 142 and 144 of the Indian Limitation Act. About House No. 28/D-10 it was said that defendant No. 1 Shaukat Husain permitted to instal a Bhatti in the house for some time and it is in possession of defendant No. 1, and he was not the tenant of Smt. Shahzadi Begam at the time of her death. 4. The suit was decreed by the trial court for the ejectment of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and for recovery of Rs. 450/ as damages as against defendant No. 1 together with pendente late and future damage at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month for both the houses in dispute till the delivery of possession of the houses to the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment of the trial court which was dismissed. The defendant No. 1 has filed the aforesaid appeal against the decree and judgment of the lower appellate court. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff was not the sole owner of the houses in dispute, but the appellant is also the owner of the same. According to the learned counsel for the appellant even if the houses originally belonged to Smt. Shahzadi Begam, the plaintiff respondent will be her heir. The defendant appellant will also be the heir of Smt. Shahzadi Begam as residuary. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the rent notes (Exts. According to the learned counsel for the appellant even if the houses originally belonged to Smt. Shahzadi Begam, the plaintiff respondent will be her heir. The defendant appellant will also be the heir of Smt. Shahzadi Begam as residuary. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the rent notes (Exts. 9 and 10) and other documents have not been taken into consideration by the lower appellate court. 6. From the perusal of the written statement it appears that the defendant appellant has not taken any specific case in the written statement to show that he or anyone else was also heir of Smt. Shahzadi Begam along with the plaintiff-appellant. There was no specific issue on the subject. The trial court on the evidence on the record held that the plaintiff-respondent is the sole owner of the houses in dispute. No specific ground has been taken before the lower appellate court to show that the plaintiff-respondent was not the sole owner but defendant No. 1 or any other person was also the owners of the two houses in dispute being the heirs of Smt. Shahzadi Begam. In view of these facts the courts below have committed no illegality in holding that the plaintiff-respondent was the sole owner of the houses in dispute. 7. The trial court has considered Exts 9 and 10 and other evidence on the record and after considering the material evidence on the record it recorded a finding that the Exts. 9 and 10 are forged documents and cannot be relied upon. The lower appellate court has also considered these documents Exts. 9 and 10 and other evidence on the record. After detailed discussion the lower appellate court has agreed with the findings recorded by the trial court. I do not find any illegality in the judgment of the lower appellate which may warrant interference in second appeal. 8. I find no force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, the patties shall bear their own costs.