JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree by Sri B.P. Shukla, learned III Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur dated 29.7.1974, learned Judge set aside the judgment of Sri P.K. Chatterjee, learned Munsif, Gorakhpur dated 21.8.1973 in original suit no. 356 of 1969 and dismissed the suit of plaintiff with costs. 2. Plaintiff Smt. Radhika Devi filed this suit with the allegations that she was the owner of the land in dispute which she obtained on lease from Zamindar. The lease was registered on 22.3.1959 and since then she was in possession. Defendant threatened plaintiff on 30.3.1969 as he was out to construct a wall. That wall had been actually constructed now by him. Thus the relief sought was for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of plaintiff over the land shown by letters Ka, Kha, Ga Gha, Ya Ra in the sketch map appended to the plaint; there was also a prayer to demolish the wall raised in the disputed land. This relief was introduced through an amendment. Costs of the suit were also claimed. 3. It appears that number of this land was also given as 201. 4. The defence was that land in suit was a portion of the ancestral house of defendant and his brother Mahadeo. After death of Mahadeo there was a litigation between defendant and Gopal, son of Mahadeo; widow of Gopal was also a party to that litigation. This partition suit was number 1085 of 1965. 5. Sri Hari Ram, father of plaintiff was a peon in civil court. Gorakhpur and used to do Pairvi in the aforesaid partition suit on behalf of Gulab and so procured a bogus lease-deed from Zamindar in the name of his daughter Smt. Radhika Devi and got the suit instituted. 6. The house sought to be partitioned in the litigation between defendant and his nephew etc. consisted of ruined house and a portion of which alone was intact. That portion was occupied by one Gama alias Mukund Lal as tenant. Gama was also a party to the partition suit and the decree in the partition was passed against him also. 7. The land in suit was never occupied by Zamindar and defendant was all along in possession over this land, possession of defendant became exclusive after the partition aforesaid and he enclosed the disputed land by a boundary wall. Gama was also a party to the partition suit and the decree in the partition was passed against him also. 7. The land in suit was never occupied by Zamindar and defendant was all along in possession over this land, possession of defendant became exclusive after the partition aforesaid and he enclosed the disputed land by a boundary wall. 8. Learned Munsif found that plaintiff was owner of the land by virtue of lease. He further found that the disputed wall was new and the suit was within time. 9. In the result claim was allowed. 10. Defendant carried the matter in appeal which was allowed by the impugned judgment. 11. Plaintiff has come up in appeal before this Court. 12. I have heard Sri Gyan Prakash advocate for the appellant learned counsel for the respondent Sri K.P. Srivastava did not turn up nor filed the documents which were withdrawn on behalf of his client on 28.1.1975 vide endorsement on list 25 Ga. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before me that the disputed land was noted as Sahan in Khasra and not as appurtenant to the house of defendant and under such circumstances being waste land it vested in the Zamindar. In his written statement it was not pleaded by defendant that the land in dispute was Sahan of his house. A perusal of the record shows that in support of her case plaintiff examined Hari Ram P.W.1, Qazi Wahab Ashraf P.W. 2 who supported the case of plaintiff. 14. Dwarika Prasad, D.W. 1 and his witness Jagannath testified about the defence case. 15. On behalf of plaintiff there was a lease deed executed by Qazi Wahab Ashraf, P.W.2, on 22.3.1969. It is a registered instrument and was marked as Ext. 1. 16. As against this evidence defendant filed a number of documents which had been discussed by earned appellate court in his judgment. These was also a report of Amin and Vakil-Commissioner. 17. I have carefully gone through the entire record. 18. It appears that the allegations of defendant were fully supported by copy of decree Ext. A4 of Civil suit No. 1085 of 1965. This decree was dated 29.10.1966 passed by II Additional Munsif, Gorakhpur. The portion of defendants house was shown in the Amin's map. 17. I have carefully gone through the entire record. 18. It appears that the allegations of defendant were fully supported by copy of decree Ext. A4 of Civil suit No. 1085 of 1965. This decree was dated 29.10.1966 passed by II Additional Munsif, Gorakhpur. The portion of defendants house was shown in the Amin's map. In his own statement defendant has given the boundary of his house and also testified that Gama was the tenant in the portion allotted to the defendant. He further testified to have filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against Gama. He denied the suggestion that Gama resides in the portion of the house of Raghunath Pathak. 19. He further testified about Saligram who was his maternal uncle and Mst. Bachchi his maternal aunt. He further mentioned that Dhannu had executed a will in favour of Smt. Bachchi in respect of the disputed house. Smt. Bachchi gave the land in suit to Smt. Budhana, the mother of defendant. Notice paper no. 51/c had been received from Nagarpalika directing Smt. Budhana to demolish the house, vide Ext. A5. He further stated that Zamindar was never in possession over the land in suit while the defendant and his ancestors including his maternal uncle were in possession over the said land. Jagannath D.W. 2 also supported his statement to the full. 20. Ext. 3 copy of Khasra 1322 Fasli records plot no. 201 as sahan of the house. It is correct that it was not mentioned in Ext. 3 that it was Sahan of the house of Dwarika but a perusal of Khasra and map shall go to disclose that only two houses adjoin this land viz the house of Dwarika and house of Ram Deo. Ram Deo does not claim any connection with it. It is correct that Zamindar was no party to the earlier litigation but there is cogent evidence on record to show that it was in possession of defendant and his predecessor being courtyard of their house. A perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record coupled with the map of commissioner shall go to show that plot no. 201 was the courtyard of the ancestral house of defendant and Zamindar had nothing to do with the same and could not induce plaintiff on it. A perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record coupled with the map of commissioner shall go to show that plot no. 201 was the courtyard of the ancestral house of defendant and Zamindar had nothing to do with the same and could not induce plaintiff on it. The findings of learned appellate court on the point of possession and ownership are perfectly correct and do not call for any interference in Second appeal. 21. In the result the appeal fails. The impugned judgment and decree are affirmed. However, as respondent did not appear to contest the appeal or file the documents as directed on the last date so the costs of this court shall be easy.