G. G. SOHANI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for grant of permanent injunction. The plaintiffs' case in brief was that the suit land belonged to the plaintiffs, that they were in peaceful possession of the suit land for more than 50 years, and that the defendants were trying to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed for grant of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the suit land. The suit was resisted by the defendants inter alia on the ground that the defendants had purchased the land from Ramchandra and Kanhaiyalal by a registered were in possession of the suit land. The trial court found that the suit land was in continuous possession of the plaintiffs for about 50 years and that the defendants were unlawfully interfering with the plaintiffs' possession. The trial Court, therefore, decreed the plaintiffs' suit. On appeal, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court were affirmed. Hence, the defendants have preferred this second appeal. ( 2 ) SHRI Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the lower appellate court has failed to elaborately discuss and appreciate the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellant took me through the entire evidence and contended that the lower appellate court had erred in affirming the finding of the trial court that the plaintiffs were in continuous possession of the suit land for about 50 years prior to the institution of the suit. ( 3 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiffs came to the court with a case that though the suit land was recorded in the name of Khemraj, brother-in-law of the father of plaintiff 1 the transaction was Benami and that the father of plaintiff 1 and thereafter plaintiffs were in continuous possession of the suit land. It has come on record that after the institution of the suit, the plaintiffs had prayed for grant of temporary injunction against the defendants and that prayer was allowed. On appeal, the order of the trial court was affirmed. However, when the suit was dismissed for default, the defendants took possession of the suit land. It has come on record that after the institution of the suit, the plaintiffs had prayed for grant of temporary injunction against the defendants and that prayer was allowed. On appeal, the order of the trial court was affirmed. However, when the suit was dismissed for default, the defendants took possession of the suit land. Thereafter the trial court, after restoration of the suit, directed by its order dated 26-10-1970 that the defendants should deliver possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs. That is how the defendants had come into possession of the suit land for some time after the institution of the suit but this fact would not disentitle the plaintiffs to the grant of permanent injunction if the plaintiffs were found to be in possession of the suit land on the date of the institution of the suit. ( 4 ) NOW the trial court dealt with the testimony of plaintiffs' and defendants' witnesses in detail and on a careful consideration of their evidence found, that the testimony of plaintiffs' witnesses that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land on the date of the institution of the suit, was reliable. The lower appellate court referred to the entries in Revenue Records and to the fact that the land revenue was paid by plaintiff Shankarlal. The lower appellate court found that defendant Nirbhaysing had obtained possession of the suit land after the institution of the suit, but the possession was then restored to the plaintiffs. The lower appellate court held that no case was made out on behalf of the defendant-appellant for interfering with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court The grievance made on behalf of the appellant that the judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated because the lower appellate court failed to discuss the evidence on record in detail, is not well founded. In this connection I may usefully refer to the folowing observation of the Supreme Court in Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary AIR 1967 SC 1124 : - "it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence either to restate the effect of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court. Expression of general agreement with reasons given by the court decision of which is under appeal would ordinarily suffice. Expression of general agreement with reasons given by the court decision of which is under appeal would ordinarily suffice. " the learned counsel for the appellant was, thus, unable to satisfy me that the judgment of the lower appellate court was vitiated by any error of law. No case, in my opinion, has been made out for interfering with the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court. ( 5 ) THE appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee according to scale, if certified. Appeal dismissed. .