JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - This second appeal is directed by the defendant appellant against the judgment and decree dated 6th September, 1975 of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Kanpur. 2. The facts of the case can be better appreciated by looking at the following pedigree, mentioned in the judgment of the appellate court : 3. The case of the plaintiff was that the disputed room belonged to Sat Narain and Chandrabali, sons of Ram Charan. According to the plaint, Chandra Bali transferred his share to his wife who is the plaintiff and Sat Narain transferred his share later to the plaintiff, and this is how the plaintiff claims herself to be the sole owner of the disputed room. It is pleaded in the plaint that the licence was granted to the defendant to can take to live in the disputed room from before the purchase and she also permitted the defendant to continue to live in the disputed room. The plaintiff claims to have terminated the licence as the defendant did not vacate the room. After termination of his licence, the suit was filed. 4. The defendant claimed that the disputed room was ancestral property and she being a widow of the son of Sat Narain, became a co-sharer of the suit property ancestral property was not entitled to transfer his share to the plaintiff. In the alternative, it was claimed that her husband was allotted the disputed room and on his death, she inherited the tenancy. 5. The courts below considered the question whether the defendant became a tenant of the disputed room or she was a licencee. A finding was returned against her that she was not a tenant and this is a finding of fact which cannot be agitated in the second appeal. 6. Learned appellate court has stated the facts that Durga Prasad purchased the disputed room from one Manohar Lal and the former gifted the same on 27-11-1942 to his wife. On 18-11-1958 Smt. Sunder Kaur wife of Durga Prasad gifted the suit property to Sat Narain and Chandra Bali on 22-12-1966. Having stated these facts, the appellate court observed : "All these facts including the pedigree cited above are admitted to both the parties." There is no ground in appeal that the above observation was wrongly made by the appellate court and in fact these facts were not admitted. Having stated these facts, the appellate court observed : "All these facts including the pedigree cited above are admitted to both the parties." There is no ground in appeal that the above observation was wrongly made by the appellate court and in fact these facts were not admitted. Therefore, the above observation can no more be disputed in this appeal. From the above facts, it is amply clear that the suit property was not ancestral and, therefore, the defendant cannot claim any right of residence being a widow of the family in the suit property. Already, a finding of fact that the defendant was merely a licensee and not a tenant having been returned. I see no force in this appeal, of the defendant. She is liable to be ejected from the suit property, as she has become a trespasser after the termination of her licence. 7. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The parties will, however, bear their own costs throughout.