JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs alleged possession over the land in suit. The plaintiff also claimed possession in the alternative in case he was found to be out of possession. Admittedly, according to the plaintiffs case also, the land in suit originally belonged to the ancestors of the defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased it under an unregistered sale deed of 1944, while the defendant purchased a part of plot No. 496 from the defendants 2 to 4 under a registered sale deed dated the 15th June, 1964. The first defendant, who was the main contestant claimed to be the bhumidhar in possession of the land in suit. As many as fourteen issues were framed by the trial Court. Issue 2 was whether defendant is bhumidhar in possession of plot No. 496 and issue 4 was whether the land in suit was abadi or agricultural land, if so, its effect Issue 4 was referred by the trial Court to the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division for a finding under S. 331-A, U. P, Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Assistant Collector in charge o the sub division returned the finding that the land was abadi and the cultivation of vegetables thereon was only by way of a kitchen garden. 2. An application was made in this Court on behalf of the defendant respondent (since deceased) and non represented by the heirs and representatives, praying that the appeal an; the suit giving rise to it may be abated under S. 5 (2), U. P. Consolidation of Holding Act. That application was opposed on the ground that the land having been held to be abadi on a reference made under S. 331-A U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, by the Assistant Collector (ii) charge of the subdivision, it had ceased be land within the meaning of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the consolidation authorities had, therefore, no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any rights in respect of the land, and that, therefore, the appeal and the suit giving rise to it were not liable to be abated under S. 5 (2), U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. There can be no doubt that a bhumidhar is entitled to use the land for any purpose whatsoever, although initially he is deemed to hold it for agricultural purpose but the definition of land contained in close (14) of S. 3, U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, shows that the land held for purposes connected with agricultural purposes is not land if the case is covered by Sections 109, 143 and 144 of Chap. 7, U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. A perusal of S. 331A of the Act shows that a reference made to the Assistant Collector in charge of a sub division under that section has to be decided by him in accordance with the provisions of S. 143 or 144, as the case may be, and the finding recorded by the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub division has to be accepted for the purposes of the case. The appellate Court has, however, to regard it as a finding of the trial Court for the purposes of the appeal. In the result, it must be held for the purposes of this appeal that the land in suit was not agricultural land and that being so it is difficult to say that the consolidation authorities had any jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties in respect of the land although the defendant No. 1 claimed to be a bhumidhar thereof. Under sub-s. (2) of S. 143, U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, it has to be deemed that the provisions of Chap. 8, U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, did not apply and the devolution of the rights of the parties is governed by the personal law to which the bhumidhar is subject. 3. The application for abatement of the appeal and the suit giving rise to it is thus liable to be rejected. This brings me to the merits of the appeal. 4. The lower appellate Court has disbelieved the plaintiffs case that he had purchased the land in suit by an unregistered sale deed or that he was in possession thereof. The finding is based on an appraisal of the evidence on the records. This brings me to the merits of the appeal. 4. The lower appellate Court has disbelieved the plaintiffs case that he had purchased the land in suit by an unregistered sale deed or that he was in possession thereof. The finding is based on an appraisal of the evidence on the records. It has not been established before me that it suffers from any error of law and it has been found that defendant did purchase the land in suit from defendants 2 to 4 under a registered sale deed dated the 15th June, 1964. It was the admitted case of the plaintiff that the land in suit belonged originally to the ancestors of defendants 2 to 4. Both the Courts below having believed the case of defendant both on questions of title and possession and the finding being based on an appraisal of the evidence it is not possible to say that it suffers from any error of law. 5. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.