JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for declaration that he is the owner of the constructions with the land in suit and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession thereon. The constructions are in the nature of a Kotha, dalan and chabutra, and are shown on the map annexed to the plaint by the latters ABCD and described by boundaries given at the foot of the plaint. According to the plaintiff there was an old kutcha construction since the time of his grand-father which fell down about 8 years before the suit; that he made another house in the village and some 4 years ago he erected the constructions in suit, but a few days ago the first defendant in collusion with the second defendant claimed the property to be his own and the plaintiff was informed about 15 days ago that the first defendant had obtained a fictitious decree against the second defendant. That was suit no. 76 of 1960, which was decreed for possession against the second defendant. It was alleged that the decree was collusive and not binding on the plaintiff. 2. The defence gave rise to the following issues : - "1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the house in suit ? 2. Is the suit barred by time ? 3. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?" 3. The trial court held that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the house in suit that the suit is not barred by time; and finding that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed, decreed the suit. The lower appellate court has on a careful analysis of the material on the record reversed the findings and judgment of the trial court and dismissed the suit. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, I find that the appeal is concluded by the facts found by the lower appellate court. It has found that the plaintiff and the second defendant are of the same family. The earlier suit was not collusive, rather the second defendant appears to have set up the plaintiff to file the present suit after losing the earlier suit after full contest, and dismissal of his appeal, when the decree for possession was about to be executed against him by the first defendant. The earlier suit was not collusive, rather the second defendant appears to have set up the plaintiff to file the present suit after losing the earlier suit after full contest, and dismissal of his appeal, when the decree for possession was about to be executed against him by the first defendant. With regard to the oral evidence the lower appellate court observed that the learned Munsif did not apply the same test for appreciating the evidence of the parties; that "the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses of the defendant carried weight with the learned munsif but these had no effect whatsoever on him so far those in the statement of the plaintiffs witnesses were concerned." And that if the learned munsif had applied the same test to the evidence of the plaintiff he would not have believed the plaintiffs witnesses as their statements were not only contradictory but also inconsistent with the case that the plaintiff had come with." 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the finding of the lower appellate court was based on the decree in the earlier suit. That was not binding on the plaintiff, as he was no party to it. Thus, urged learned counsel, the finding that the plaintiff is not the owner nor in possession of tie property is vitiated. There is no merit in this contention. The lower appellate court has found that the earlier suit was not collusive. The second defendant had contested the matter in the trial court and had even appealed from the decree. On the other hand the plaintiff and the second defendant appear to be together in the present suit. The decree in the earlier suit was without doubt admissible evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act, as showing that quite recently the first defendant had been found to be the owner of the property and entitled to recover possession of it from the second defendant, after contest, That was not conclusive or binding and the facts stated or the finding arrived at therein may not be relevant, but coupled with that fact was the unreliable and shaky nature of the oral evidence of the plaintiff in the present writ, without there being any document in his favour. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to establish that the judgment of the lower appellate court suffers from any error of law. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to establish that the judgment of the lower appellate court suffers from any error of law. Having perused it, I would say that, for the reasons given by it the findings arrived at by the lower appellate court are correct. 7. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.