M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a defendants' second appeal against the divergent findings of the courts below. ( 2 ) THE 1st respondent-plaintiff filed o. S. 274/71 in ,the Court of the Munsiff at Shorapur praying for a decree against the defendants (appellants in this Court) for possession of 28 acres 35 guntas situated at Bassapur village, Shorapur taluk in Gulbarga district. ( 3 ) THE plaint averments may be summarised as follows: the plaintiff was the daughter of one Rayappa son of Chandappa and he had only one brother Gangappa; that the brothers were joint; that the father of the plaintiff, Rayappa died some 14 years back leaving her as the sole heir and successor; that the plaintiff's mother had predecesased her father. Even after her father's death, the plaintiff lived with her uncle Gangappa; that Gangappa was a bachelor and died on 22-5-71 leaving no other heirs than the plaintiff herself; that the suit land Sy No. 25 of Bassatur village in Shorapur taluk wa,s purchased by her father and uncle from the joint family funds in the name of Gangappa and that the brothers possessed and enjoyed the suit land jointly till the death of the plaintiff's father Rayappa; that after the death of Rayappa the plaintiff was in joint possession qf the land with her uncle till she was forcibly dispqssessed by the defendants on 7-6-61 without having any right over it and since then the defendants were in illegal possession and enjoyment of the suit land; that in spite of several requests mae for restoring possession the defendants did not pay any attention and on account of old age, ailment and fiancial condition she could not take legal steps immediately after her forcible and illegal dispossession; that again on 27-3-1971 she demanded the defendants to give up possession of the suit land but the defendants refused and therefore the suit. ( 4 ) THE defendants resisted the suit inter-alia contending that they had purchased the suit land from the previous owner Gangappa about 15 years back and since then they had been in possession of the suit land as owners to the knowledge and information of Gangappa without any interruption and that the names of defendants 1 to 3 had been entered in the column meant for 'occupants' in the pahani pathrika in respect of the suit land. They further denied that the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff's father and Gangappa out of joint family funds. They also denied the joint possession and enjoyment of the brothers Rayappa and Gangappa till Rayappa's death. They also denied that Gangappa and Rayappa were brothers at all On the other hand, they averred that gangappa was not a bachelor and that he had a wife. They alsq alleged that the plaintiff was not the heir and successor to Gangappa who could seek possession of the land as alleged by her. The defendants further averred in their written statement that the suit was barred by time as the dispossession even if proved had taken place more than 12 years prior to the filing of the suit. ( 5 ) ON these pleadings the trial court framed as many as six issues which are as follows: - (1) Does the plaintiff prove that the suit land was purchased by her father and uncle Rayappa Gangappa from the joint family funds? (2) Does the, plaintiff prove that the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land on 7-6-1961? (3) Does the plaintiff prove that she the heir of Gangappa ? (4) Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land within 12 years prior to the date of the suit ? (5) Whether the suit for possession without declaration is maintainable ? (6) To what relief the parties are entitled ? ( 6 ) THE trial Court found all the issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff in the trial Court had examined three witnesses in support of her case and adduced some documentary evidence such as Pahanj Pathrika for the years 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. The defendants examined two witnesses in support of their case and no document whatsoever was produced by them. ( 7 ) THE, trial Court persuaded itself to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove her relationship with Gaugappa solely on the ground that she had not examined herself in the case as a witness as she was afraid to face cross-examination by the defendants. In this context the trial Court led itself to believe that the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses 1, 2 and 3 was not worthy of credence. In this context the trial Court led itself to believe that the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses 1, 2 and 3 was not worthy of credence. It further came to the conclusion that since the plaintiff had failed to prove her relationship to gangappa nothing survived for consideration but nevertheless came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by time without reference to any particular date on which the defendants could claim possession of the land other than the one mentioned by the plaintiff. ( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the trial Court's judgment and decree, the plaintiff appealed in R. A. 47/1973 to the Principal Civil Judge at Gulbarga. The appellate Court, after considering all the evidence in the case came to the conclusion that there was no justification for the trial Court to disbelieve the evidence of the three witnesses of the plaintiff 'which was supported, according to him, by the documentary evidence in the case. On the other hand, he came to the conclusion that on careful consideration of the evidence as a whole given by the witnesses for the plaintiff and haying regard to the fact that the defendants produced no documentary. evidence whatsoever in support of the assertions made by them in the written statement, reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. ( 9 ) IT is in these circumstances that the defendants have come up in second appeal to this Court. ( 10 ) SRI O. Maheshwara, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants strenuosly argued that this court should reject the, reasoning adopted by the lower appellate Court in as much as the lower appellate court was not justified in interfering with the reasoning of the learned judge of the trial Court in as much as the learned Judge qf the trial Court had the advantage of studying the witnesses' demeanour and therefore was in a better position to determine as to who was speaking the truth and whether their evidence was worthy of credence. It is his further contention that the lower appellate court erred in law in reappreciating the evidence. ( 11 ) I do not see much force in either of the contentions. The Lower appellate court was not inhibited by any law procedural or substantive from reappreciating the evidence o,n record. It is his further contention that the lower appellate court erred in law in reappreciating the evidence. ( 11 ) I do not see much force in either of the contentions. The Lower appellate court was not inhibited by any law procedural or substantive from reappreciating the evidence o,n record. The lower appellate Court has given cqgent reasoning in paras 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of its judgment a,s to why the evidence adduced for the plaintiff was sufficient to come to the, conclusion that the plaintiff had proved her relationship with Gangappa as his niece and the sole heir. The fact of dispossession, was not seriously in dispute in as much as the defendants admitted the possession of the land by virtue of an alleged sale deed which never cape into existence. The lower appellate court also, came to the conclusion, that the suit was filed within time believing that it was only in 1961 that the act of dispossession took place. This conclusion was reached by the lower appellate Court placing reliance or, the evidence given by the neighbouring land owner P. W. 3. ( 12 ) I am unable to see any legal infirmity or error of law or any perverse reasoning in the conclusions reached by the lower appellate Court in order to reverse the findings of the trial Court. Therefore, this Second appeal is dismissed. But, in the circumstances, parties will bear their own costs. --- *** --- .