JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - This is a second appeal by the defendant appellant against the judgment and decree dated 16th August, 1975 of the learned Civil Judge, Azamgarh. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendant be directed not to interfere in possession over the suit land and the trees in dispute. The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the suit land from Bhola kewat under the sale deed Ext. 1. The case was that the suit land was settled under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, as that was appurtenant to Bhola's house. Subsequently, the sale deed Ext. 12 was executed by one Kowal in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit property. The question, therefore, was whether Bhola or Kowal was the owner of the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit and that was affirmed by the appellate court. 3. On a careful perusal of the judgment of the appellate court, it appears that he recorded findings of fact that the suit land could have been the sahen only of Bhola's house as the door of Bhola only opens towards the suit land and that the defendant opened a new door in his Baithak only after the date of his sale deed. Considering both oral and documentary evidence, the appellate court reached the conclusion that the suit land could be the sahen only of the plaintiff's house. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before me that no clear findings have been recorded by the appellate court on the ingredients of Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and, therefore, the judgment cannot be sustained. From the finding that the suit land could be the sahen only of Bhola's house which has been recorded looking to the entire evidence available on the record, and considering other facts and circumstances, it clearly appears that the land was appurtenant to Bhola's house and that being so, greater probability was there that the suit land was settled under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act with the predecessor of the plaintiff. From these facts, no question of law arises requiring decision of this court. I do not see any legal infirmity in the judgment of the appellate court. From these facts, no question of law arises requiring decision of this court. I do not see any legal infirmity in the judgment of the appellate court. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the clear finding should have been recorded that the suit land was necessary for beneficiary enjoyment of the house of Bhola's predecessor of the plaintiff. Nothing has been shown that the entire suit land was not and could not be necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of Bhola's house. There is nothing to show that the size of the suit land is so unproportionate and large that could not be necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of the suit house. 5. For the reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The parties will, however, bear their own costs.