JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This is defendant no. 1s appeal directed against judgment and decree of Shri Jagdish Mohan Srivastava, learned Civil Judge, Basti in Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1972 dated 20-8-1973. The appeal was dismissed with costs and the judgment and decree of Sri K.P. Verma, learned Munsif, Basti dated 1-11-1971 in original suit no. 411 of 1968 were affirmed. 2. Dispute relates to a mango tree shown by letter 'ka' as denoted in the Amins map dated 30-10-1969 (paper no. 20-C). 3. This tree lies in area of village Barokhar, Tappa Adampur, pargana Rasulpur, district Basti situate in present plot no. 20 corresponding to old plot no 1029. Plot No. 1029 was bifurcated in two plots, viz ; 19 and 20 during consolidation operations. 4. The relief sought was for recovery of possession after ejectment of defendant no. 1. 5. Defendants second set, viz 2 to 4 and plaintiffs are collateral's. 6. The case made for plaintiffs was that plaintiff a long with defendants 2 to 4 used to bury their dead in the land in dispute. There was a custom in this family to bury their dead. Some scattered trees were planted in this land by their ancestors. New plots no. 19 and 20 correspond to old plot no. 1029 vide consolidation operations. That land has been shown by letters A.B.C.D.E.F.A. in Amin's map aforesaid (paper no. 20-C). Plaintiffs and defendants second set were tenants in possession and after abolition of Zamindari, these scattered trees lying outside the village in their grave-yard belong to them. However, proceedings were initiated under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code by defendant no. 15 D.D. Domariaganj upheld the possession of defendant no. 1 which necessitated the suit. 7. Defendants 2 to 4 simply conceded the claim. Defendant no. 1 contested the suit on the grounds that his possession has been upheld in proceedings under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code his ancestors purchased the aforesaid land appertaining to patti Shiva Ambber Singh to the extent of six pies. Since then they were in possession over the disputed tree. The claim was barred by time and estoppel. 8. Both the courts below found that the plaintiffs were owners of the disputed tree. The claim was within time and the suit was not barred by estoppel. The plaintiffs claim was allowed. 9. Aggrieved by the decision, this appeal has been filed. The claim was barred by time and estoppel. 8. Both the courts below found that the plaintiffs were owners of the disputed tree. The claim was within time and the suit was not barred by estoppel. The plaintiffs claim was allowed. 9. Aggrieved by the decision, this appeal has been filed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 11. On behalf of appellant it was argued that a custom to bury the dead was unknown to Hindu law. Amongst Hindus, dead bodies are cremated. 12. However, a custom to bury the deads was put forward in the plaint. This custom prevailed in that locality amongst Hindus of this family, Amin also found about 29 gravery in this land at the time of his local inspection. The contention of learned counsel for appellant has no force for the simple reason that in the written statement dated 11-3-1969 in para 5, it was conceded by appellant himself that there existed graves of Hindus in this land. When appellant entered the witness box as D.W. 1 to rebut the statement of Chaudhary (P.W. 1) and Chunnu (P.W. 2) he himself conceded that although he was a Hindu and yet some members of his family were buried in the disputed land. After all of the admissions it did not lie in the mouth of appellant to urge that such custom did not prevailed in his family and was contrary to Hindu law. It is well established that a custom requires force of law when it is Judicially recognised and over-rides the law. Under such circumstances, this contention is, repelled. 13. The next contention was that the appellant purchased six pie share from patti Shiva Amber Singh and, therefore, he became owner of this tree. He went to the extent of saying that the trees were planted by his ancestors. Much stress was laid on the proceedings in criminal court. Thus, it was urged that possession of defendant no. 1 must be upheld and was noted in some extracts of Khasra and Khetauni which are on record as Exts. 7 and A-8. The orders of Sri Rameshwar Tewari S.D.M., Domariaganj dated 6.9.1968 in proceedings under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code and of Sri. S.A. Abbasi dated 23.8.1968 in the said Criminal Reference No. 9 of 1967 were also pressed in service. 14. 7 and A-8. The orders of Sri Rameshwar Tewari S.D.M., Domariaganj dated 6.9.1968 in proceedings under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code and of Sri. S.A. Abbasi dated 23.8.1968 in the said Criminal Reference No. 9 of 1967 were also pressed in service. 14. Both the courts below found the aforesaid entries in Khasra as fictitious. They rightly held that Zamindar had no right in the land occupied by tenants after the abolition of Zamindari and the scattered trees outside the village were settled with the tenants vide Sections 6 and 9 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (Act I of 1951). These concurrent findings are unassailable in view of the fact that an enquiry under Section 145 of Code Criminal Procedure is simply a summary enquiry a dispute relating to possession of immovable property which is not conclusive on the point of title. Criminal courts cannot adjudicate on the point of title. It is a summary enquiry into the nature of possession only congnizable by a criminal court. As regards the title revenue court alone was competent to decide the matter. Sri Bhagwan Swarup Bhatnagar, learned Collector, Basti on 5-12-1956 heard the parties and up-held the orders of consolidation authorities on the point that plaintiffs were sirdar's of the disputed plots under section 210 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Revenue court relied upon Khasra extract of 1359 fasli. This finding, recorded by a competent court, is binding on the appellant. Both the courts below found that the claim was not barred by time. Subsequent to the decision by revenue court, appellant procured a collusive entry in Khasra of 1371 F. Ext. A-5. Learned courts below farther found that there was no direct evidence about the person who planted these trees because the age of the trees at the time of dispute was more than hundred years and so the defendants evidence that trees were planted by their ancestor was unreliable as such a case was not put forward in written statement also, plaintiffs evidence was superior on this point. 15. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by plaintiffs showed that the disputed scattered trees lay in their grave-yard. In this connection reliance was placed upon the fact that the trees were situated in their graveyard and they were tenants and there was no case of defendant no. 1 that the landlord ever planted these trees. 15. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by plaintiffs showed that the disputed scattered trees lay in their grave-yard. In this connection reliance was placed upon the fact that the trees were situated in their graveyard and they were tenants and there was no case of defendant no. 1 that the landlord ever planted these trees. This finding of fact, as recorded by courts below concurrently, is binding on me. I do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.