JUDGMENT S.D. Agrawal, J. - This is defendants second appeal arising out of a suit field for recovery of possession over a portion of the house Ka, Kha, Ga, Cha as shown in the plaint map and for recovery of damages at Rs. 80.50 per day for illegal use and occupation in the aforesaid house. 2. The main issue before the trial court was whether the respondent is the owner of the house or not. The trial court after examining the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent is the owner of the disputed house. In view of this finding, the suit was decreed by the trial Court on 22-5-68. Against the said judgment the appellant filed an appeal. The lower appellate court also after examining the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the house in dispute belongs to the plaintiff-respondent. After arriving at this finding, the appeal was dismissed on 16th May, 1969. Against the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the finding recorded by the lower appellate court that the plaintiff-respondent is the owner of the house in dispute is a finding vitiated in law and is based on wrong interpretation of the evidence on the record. 4. I have examined the judgment of the lower appellate court and in my opinion, the submission made by the learned counsel lacks substance. The view taken by the lower appellate court is correct and there is no misreading of evidence on the record. It is always open to a court to evaluate the evidence. After appreciating the evidence the appellate court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent is the owner of the house in dispute. It is clearly a finding of fact. 5. In the result, there is no force in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.