Gokal Prasad, J.
1. This second appeal arises under the following circumstances. The plaintiffs brought the present suit for possession of two plots of land on removal of certain construction made by the defendant on these plots. The plaintiffs' allegation was that they were the zemindars and the defendant was the raiyat and as such had no right to construct on the two plots in dispute. The defendant contended that he was the owner of the plots by virtue of two sale-deeds executed about 60 years ago by the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the defendant. The two sale-deeds relied upon by the defendant were filed, they were of the years 1841 and 1843. The Munsif mainly relied on these two' sale-deeds although the plaintiffs objected to them on the ground that they did not bear the signatures of the wendors although one of them was literate. The Munsif, however, found on the evidence in favour of the defendant and dismissed the claim. On appeal by the plaintiffs the lower Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs were the owners and has decreed the suit. It has given no effect to the sale-deeds referred to above on the ground that although the sale-deeds were more than 50 years old and the presumption of law was that they were executed by the persons who purported to execute them, there was no presumption that the scribe who signed these documents for the executants had authority from the executants to do so. I hold this view which is in consonance with the view taken by this Court in the cases of Gokul Singh v. Saheb Singh 38 Ind. Cas. 162 : 15 A.L.J. 121 and Lokman Das v. Ganga Sahai 60 Ind. Cas. 96 is correct. The present appeal has been filed because the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has losely used the words 'are not admissible in evidence' when talking of these sale-deeds. He has not rejected them from the evidence but they still form part of the record. As I have said above, all that the learned Judge could have meant and did mean was that the sale-deeds relied upon by the defendant were of no avail to him because there was no presumption that the vendors really executed them as they admittedly do not bear the signatures of the vendors and there was no evidence that the vendors authorised the scribe to execute these deeds. Reliance is placed on the case of Yar Ali v. Hashmat Bibi A.W.N. (1897) 90. That case is of no help to the defendant-appellant 'inasmuch as in the present case these documents were not admitted without objection. I hold that the lower Appellate Court was justified in ignoring these documents as evidence of the defendant's title. The finding that the plaintiffs are the owners of the plots in dispute is a finding of fact. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs.