Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.;- Heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage. This is plaintiffs' second appeal arising out of O.S.No.142 of 1987. The suit was dismissed on 27.08.1998 by 5th Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Allahabad. Against the said judgment and decree Civil Appeal No.236 of 1998 was filed which was dismissed on 22.08.2009 by Additional District Judge, Court No.13, Allahabad hence this second appeal. In the plaint it was alleged that the land in dispute shown by letters A, B, C, D in the plaint map was adjacent to double storied Fakhri Mosque situate at Bai ka bag, Allahabad and it was property of the mosque. The mosque is admittedly situate in plot no.99 and property of the defendants is situate in plot no.97. The disputed land lies in between defendants' houses and the mosque. According to the defendants it is part of plot no.97. It was shown in the plaint map that the main door of the mosque was towards east opening on a road. It was further alleged that towards north also there were three doors of the mosque two of which were closed by the defendants illegally. It was further alleged that towards north west corner of the mosque there is small bathroom/ latrine which is having its door towards north in a Gali. Plaintiffs' witness P.W.1 (plaintiff no.1) admitted that after several yards of the gali towards north one had to turn towards right in order reach at the main road. Courts below held that there was no sense in having the doors towards the north as the main door was towards the east and it was not practicable that some one would by pass the main door and then reach the alleged doors on the northern side. The courts below further held that the disputed portion was lying vacant for a long time hence the people using the mosque or its Mutwali might have started, treating the same to be part of the mosque. Reliance was also placed upon a map prepared by Nagar Maha Palika on 08.03.1913 showing plot no.97 (of the defendants) lying just in the north of the mosque. I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the courts below which are basically findings of fact. Reliance was also placed upon a map prepared by Nagar Maha Palika on 08.03.1913 showing plot no.97 (of the defendants) lying just in the north of the mosque. I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the courts below which are basically findings of fact. As far as the door of the latrine/ bathroom is concerned defendants-respondents did not make any claim thereupon and they admitted that this door opened in gali. The defendants had purchased the property through registered sale deed dated 09.01.1962 and in the sale deed mosque was shown towards south. P.W. 3 Hakimullah stated that there were four doors even though in the plaint only three doors were shown. Both the courts below categorically found that the plaintiff could not prove that there was any rasta towards the north of the mosque except north south gali in front of latrine/bathroom. In the Waqf deed dated 10.01.1961, it was mentioned that towards north rasta was situate. However, in the sale deed through which defendants purchased the property afterwards i.e. on 09.01.1962 it was mentioned that towards south mosque was situate. Lower appellate court observed that it was quite possible that the land of plot no.97 being vacant might be used as rasta occasionally. In the plaint a clear cut case of ownership was not taken, alternative cases of ownership and rasta had been taken. If the land in dispute had belonged to the mosque, there was no sense in leaving a public rasta therein. In the Commissioner's report it was mentioned that in the northern wall of the mosque signs of doors were there. It was not clear from the Commissioner's report that how old the doors might be. In any case, Commissioner's report is merely a piece of evidence and the courts below have taken into consideration oral and as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties in arriving at the findings. Accordingly, second appeal being concluded by finding of fact is dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC.