A.P. Sahi, J.;— Heard Kr. R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. This is a defendant's Second Appeal questioning the judgment and decree of the trial Court whereby the Suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents herein has been decreed and the appeal against the same filed by the defendant has been dismissed by the first appellate court. The suit was for injunction praying that the defendant - appellant herein be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the land as earmarked in the Plaint, which was being claimed as a "Sahan" adjoining land of the house of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel submits that the following substantial questions of law have arisen for consideration in this Second Appeal; namely:- (i)Whether the documentary evidence filed by the defendant was ignored and the Suit could have been decreed only on the basis of the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff. (ii)Whether it was necessary for the defendant to have produced either the vendor or his son in the witness-box for proving the alleged sale of the disputed property from the original vendor Chheda Nai; and (iii)Whether the court below was justified in not treating the disputed land to be the land appurtenant for the purpose of Sehan in favour of plaintiff under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and for that purpose the court below was justified in pressing into service the report of the Commissioner to establish possession. The trial court framed 7 issues and thereafter proceeded to record a finding on the issue of possession and held that the sale-deed set up by the defendant could not be proved, nor the possession on the basis of the sale-deed was established as a material witness relating to the execution of the said document was not brought to the witness-box. The trial court accordingly decreed the Suit. Not only this, the trial court also relied on the cross-examination of the defendant witnesses particularly DW-2 and DW-4 and also indicated that the defendant - Jangi Singh himself indicated that he was blind for the past 10 - 20 years. It was also brought on record that Chheda Lal had already left his village for the past more than 20 years and finding contradictions in the statement of the defendant - witnesses came to be conclusion that the defendant has not been able to establish their assertion. It was also brought on record that Chheda Lal had already left his village for the past more than 20 years and finding contradictions in the statement of the defendant - witnesses came to be conclusion that the defendant has not been able to establish their assertion. The trial court also delved into the extract of the Khasra Abadi and has recorded a finding that even though the name of Chheda Lal Nai was mentioned against House No.359 and 360, but there were contradictions in the statements of the defence witnesses and he was not found to be the owner in possession of the House and Sahan keeping in view of the provisions of Section-9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. It was, therefore, found that Jangi Singh was neither the owner nor was in possession over the land in dispute. An appeal was preferred against the same being First Appeal No.44 of 1987 and the appellate court has again discussed the entire material on record indicating the fact that Chheda Lal had not lived in the premises for the past 20 years. The appellate Court further indicates the recital contained in the sale-deed about a house in question was inappropriate as it was described as a ruined plot (Khandahar plot). The appellate court has further discussed the case of Chheda Lal and arrived at the conclusion that Chheda Lal was not residing in the premises nor any house existed as described in the sale-deed. The appellate court has further relied on the Advocate Commissioner's report and it is here that Sri R.C. Singh contends that this evidence could not be relied upon for the purpose of recording possession. The appeal of the defendant was accordingly dismissed. In my opinion, this finding is corroborated by other evidence on record and the defendant had failed to establish his claim of possession before the trial court as well as before the appellate court. The contradiction of the statements was also recorded nor to affirm the judgment of the trial court. The contention raised by Sri Singh that the documentary evidence indicated the possession of Cheda/Sarju Nai has been discarded. The contradiction of the statements was also recorded nor to affirm the judgment of the trial court. The contention raised by Sri Singh that the documentary evidence indicated the possession of Cheda/Sarju Nai has been discarded. In my opinion, the provisions of Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act after the abolition of Zamindari are clearly attracted to the aid of the plaintiff and if the land is appurtenant to the house of the plaintiff, the same will be presumed to have been settled in his favour. The defendants failed to establish their possession. No error has been committed by the trial court in arriving at the finding. Both the courts below have recorded their finding on the basis of the evidence on record which does not give any rise to the substantial question of law as raised on behalf of the defendant-appellant. The matter is concluded by clear findings on facts. There is no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed. _____________