JUDGMENT R.R. Rastogi, J. - This is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit filed by plaintiff-respondents 1 and 2 for possession over a piece of land marked by letters ABCD in the plaint map. 2. The case taken by the plaintiff-respondents was that one Mahangi, was the father of plaintiff No. 1 Smt. Dulari, a resident of village Jangal Tulsi Ram alias Bichhia Tappa, Pargana Haveli, District Gorakhpur, had his house and sahan to the east thereof in this village which is shown by letters ABCD in the map. After Mahangi's death, his wife Smt. Dhanraji, entered in possession over the land in dispute and she used it as her kitchen garden and also planted a large number of trees in it. It was alleged that the land in dispute would be deemed to have been settled with Smt. Dhanraji under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. Smt. Dhanraji bequeathed the land in dispute by means of will dated 13-12-1953 in favour of her daughter Smt. Dulari and since Smt. Dhanraji's death, Smt. Dulari had been living along with her husband in the aforesaid house and had been in possession of the land in dispute. It was alleged that in May, 1967, the defendants took illegal possession over the land in dispute and hence the suit was filed. 3. The defendants contested the suit and pleaded that Smt. Dulari was not the daughter of Mahangi, that Smt. Dhanraji was not the widow of Mahangi and that, in the alternative, she had no right to execute any will. It was claimed that the land in dispute lay Parti and it was taken by the defendants from the Zamindar Singhasan Kunwar and since then they have been in possession. The defendants also claimed that the land in dispute had been settled with them under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. 4. The trial court framed a number of issues. It held that Smt. Dhanraji was the widow of Mahangi and Smt. Dulari is her daughter that at first Mahangi and thereafter Smt. Dhanraji were in possession of the land in dispute and Smt. Dhanraji could execute a will in respect of the land in dispute in favour of Smt. Dulari. 4. The trial court framed a number of issues. It held that Smt. Dhanraji was the widow of Mahangi and Smt. Dulari is her daughter that at first Mahangi and thereafter Smt. Dhanraji were in possession of the land in dispute and Smt. Dhanraji could execute a will in respect of the land in dispute in favour of Smt. Dulari. It was also held that the dispute land shall be deemed to have been settled with the plaintiffs under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. The plea of limitation was also repelled and the suit was decreed with costs for possession over the land in dispute. 5. Aggrieved, the defendants filed an appeal which remained unsuccessful and they have filed this second appeal before this Court. 6. It has been submitted before me on behalf of the defendant-appellants that both the courts below have misunderstood the scope of "appurtenance" and without properly understanding the same, the land in dispute has been, treated as appurtenant to the house of plaintiffs-respondents. According to the learned counsel, the matter maybe referred back for decision in the light of the law laid down in this behalf in Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2602. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants. The suit of the plaintiffs-respondents was based on their long possession, of course it was also alleged that the land in dispute being appurtenant to their house, it would be deemed to have been settled with them. They claimed themselves to be owner in possession of the land in dispute. The defendants appellants also claimed themselves to be the owners in possession and issues 1 and 7 were framed incorporating these pleas. On being satisfied by the evidence on record, the trial court held that the land in dispute had been in possession of the plaintiffs-respondents since long. It also held that the land in dispute would be deemed to have been settled with them under Section 9 of the U, P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. Before the appellate court, three submissions were made on behalf of the defendants appellants. It also held that the land in dispute would be deemed to have been settled with them under Section 9 of the U, P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. Before the appellate court, three submissions were made on behalf of the defendants appellants. Firstly, that Smt. Dulari was not the daughter of Mahangi and Smt. Dhanraji; secondly, that the will set up by the plaintiffs would not be given effect to because Smt. Dhanraji had any life interest in the property in dispute after the death of Mahangi and she could not execute the will and lastly, that the defendants had taken the land in dispute from Smt. Singhasan Kunwar. On all these points, the appellate court agreed with the view of the trial court and confirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. The lower appellate court made an observation that the land in dispute will be deemed to have been settled with the plaintiffs under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. I do not think that it was necessary for the appellate court to have gone into the question as to whether or not constituted them appurtenant land. It is correct that the Supreme Court in Maharaj Singh's case supra has laid down the guide-line in this behalf. It has been held that : "The touchstone of 'appurtenance' is dependence of the building on what appertains to it for its use as building." In the present case, as I have noted above, the plaintiffs based their claim on their long possession as also that the land in dispute was appurtenant to their house. The trial court accepted their case of long possession over the land in dispute. Before the appellate court, at the time of argument, this finding does not appear to have been challenged. Only the three questions which I have mentioned above, were raised and on all these questions also, the findings were given in favour of the plaintiffs respondents. This being so, it is absolutely out of question to remand the case for finding out as to how much portion of the land in dispute is or not appurtenant to the house of the plaintiffs. 8. It would be seen that the decision of the suit rests on concurrent findings of facts, and there is no merit in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. 8. It would be seen that the decision of the suit rests on concurrent findings of facts, and there is no merit in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is hence dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs-respondents.