JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff appellant for cancellation of the sale deed and for a permanent injunction. The suit was filed by Fateh Mohammad. He died during the pendency of the appeal in this court and his heirs have been substituted. 2. The case of the plaintiff appellant was that he was owner and in possession of a house for the last twenty years and the Kotha, osara etc. belong to him and were constructed by him, that the sahan shown by letters CDEF is appurtenant to the plaintiffs house ABCD and the plaintiff is in possession over the same. It was further alleged that the defendants want to cause an interference and hence the suit. The suit was contested on the ground that the plaintiff was not the owner of the land shown by letters CDEF. The defendants did not deny the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the land shown by letters ABCD. They, however, confined their case to the portion of the land shown by letters CDEF. They have alleged that they have purchased this portion as per sale deed dated 13-8-1962 and that they have been in possession ever since. 3. The trial court decreed the suit by judgment dated 14-9-1971. Against the said judgment an appeal was filed before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court by judgment dated 3-5-1972 allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court held that the plaintiff appellant was neither the owner of the property in dispute nor did he acquire rights by adverse possession. In view of these findings the suit was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the findings recorded by the lower appellate court are vitiated in law and have been arrived at after wrongly drawing adverse inferences against the appellant. I do not find any force in this submission. I have examined the judgment of the lower appellate court. The findings arrived at by the lower appellate court are based on appreciation of evidence. They are findings of fact Adverse inferences drawn by the lower appellate court are in accordance with law. 5. I do not find any force in this submission. I have examined the judgment of the lower appellate court. The findings arrived at by the lower appellate court are based on appreciation of evidence. They are findings of fact Adverse inferences drawn by the lower appellate court are in accordance with law. 5. In the result I do not find any force in this appeal and accordingly dismiss it but in the circumstances of the case direct the parties to bear their own costs.