JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a defendants' second appeal from the lower appellate courts decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction or interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the land marked by letters A.B.C.D. on the site plan annexed thereto. There are three plaintiff-respondents. The first two plaintiff-respondents Lakhan and Santosh Kumar are the daughters sons of the third plaintiff-respondent. The first plaintiff having died during the pendency of the second appeal in this Court, he is represented by his heirs and legal representatives. It was claimed that the third plaintiff-respondent gifted her entire property to the first two plaintiffs. To the north of their residential houses, is a cattle shed and the land in suit is bounded on the south by the plaintiffs house, on the east by their cattle-shed on the north by the defendants house and on the west by a Rasta. The plaintiffs claimed that the land in suit was their Gonda and had been used by them for tethering their cattle etc. The land is appurtenant to their house. The defendants have no concern with it. The plaintiffs wanted to construct a room on the land and obtained the permission of the Gram Samaj for doing so on payment of Rs. 20/- which is witnessed by a receipt Ext. I. The main door of the defendants house was to the east but recently they opened a door on the south of their house at point X. On plaintiffs' objection the door was closed but a fortnight before the institution of the suit the defendants started asserting their right to the land threatened that they would construct a room thereon, hence the suit. 2. The defendants challenged the plaintiffs right to institute the suit. It was said that the house or the land in dispute had not been gifted by plaintiff no. 3 to the first two plaintiffs and claimed that the land in suit was their Gonda. It was denied that the door of the plaintiffs' cattle shed opened on the land in suit. Further, according to the defendants, the third plaintiff had constructed a room about 10 years ago towards the Gonda and had opened a door on it. The defendants objected whereupon the plaintiffs closed the door, but the door was again opened by the plaintiffs after the institution of the suit. Further, according to the defendants, the third plaintiff had constructed a room about 10 years ago towards the Gonda and had opened a door on it. The defendants objected whereupon the plaintiffs closed the door, but the door was again opened by the plaintiffs after the institution of the suit. The defendants claimed that their door X was an old one and they had been using it to go to the land in dispute. The defendants used this land for keeping their bullock-cart and also as a passage. Apart from the evidence led by the parties, a commission had been issued soon after the institution of the suit. 3. The trial court held that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the land in suit and that it was not appurtenant to their house but had been in use and possession of the defendants, and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court reversed the said finding of the trial court and decreed the suit. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the findings depended on an appraisal of the oral evidence, that the Goan Samaj or the Goan Sabha had no occasion to grant any permission for raising any construction ; and that the Commissioners report supported the defendants case, and under all these circumstances the lower appellate court could not have reversed the findings of the trial court. 4. I have perused the judgments of the two courts below. I find that a commission was issued in this case immediately after the institution of the suit and apart from preparing a site plan of the land or making an objective note of the things found on the land, the Commissioner has stated certain things in his report which could not have been the result of a mere objective inspection of the land in suit but must have been based on what he was told by some one interested. The report was not confirmed without any reservation. The order of the trial court clearly noticed that the Commissioner had made certain observations in the report which could not have been the result of a mere inspection and admitted the report subject to evidence. It further appears that the trial court did not correctly appreciate the boundaries of the land as given in the receipt issued by the Gaon Sabha. It further appears that the trial court did not correctly appreciate the boundaries of the land as given in the receipt issued by the Gaon Sabha. The boundaries of the land given in the receipt issued by the Gaon Sabha fully tally with the boundaries of the land in suit. The criticism of the trial court that there was no occasion for the plaintiffs to obtain the land from the Goan Sabha if they were owners thereof as claimed by them was not justified. Under the law if some land is appurtenant to one's house on the date of vesting, that is, 1st July, 1952, it was deemed settled with him under section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, but subject to that all land in Abadi vested in the State and lateron in the Goan Sabha of the village concerned. The Goan Sabha managed all vacant land either by allotting it for home sites or for other use. Under the circumstance if some land near one's house was claimed to be appurtenant to it but the Goan Sabha did not admit that possession and instead agreed to allow the person to raise construction on that land or to use it as appurtenant to his existing house on payment of some money, that person cannot be blamed for buying peace and perfecting his title to the land by paying money to the Goan Sabha. The trial court further noted that the house property had not been gifted by plaintiff no. 3 to plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2 by the gift deed pleaded by the plaintiff. That was hardly material, for plaintiff no. 3 had joined plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2 in the institution of the suit and it was not disputed that she has been the owner of the residential house and the cattle shed to the south and to the east of the land in suit. 5. It was in the back-ground of the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the lower appellate court took a contrary view of the oral evidence and reversed the findings of the trial court. It cannot be said that the lower appellate court committed any error of law in doing so. 6. 5. It was in the back-ground of the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the lower appellate court took a contrary view of the oral evidence and reversed the findings of the trial court. It cannot be said that the lower appellate court committed any error of law in doing so. 6. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants could not thus establish that the finding of the lower appellate court that the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in suit suffers from any error of law. It is concluded by the facts found and is well supported by the evidence on the record. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.