JUDGMENT V.N. Khare, J. - This Second Appeal arises out of suit filed by plaintiff respondent for permanent injunction restraining defendants-appellants from interfering in any manner in his possession over plot no. 76 situate in village Cbandanpur Sawal, Pargana Bhojpur, District Farrukhabad. 2. The brief facts as alleged in the plaint are these: That the plaintiff is the Sirdar of plot no. 76, that the defendants have no concern therewith, that the defendants uprooted and damaged the maize and Bajra Crops standing in plot no. 76 and that on account of this wrongful act of defendants the plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs. 950/-. 3. The defendants filed written statement wherein they admitted that they have no concern with the disputed plot but they denied the allegation that they have damaged and uprooted the maize and Bajra crops standing on the plot in dispute. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the amount of Rs. 950/- as damages. 4. The trial court found that defendants have not uprooted, damaged and cut away the maize and Bajra crops standing on the plot in dispute, the plaintiff is entitled to get relief for injunction being the owner of the plot in dispute. In view of these findings the trial court partly decreed the suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the plot in dispute. The plaintiff's suit for recovery of damages was dismissed. The appellate court allowed the appeal and modified the decree to the extent that the plaintiff's suit was also decreed for Rs. 600/- for damages against defendants-respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the finding of the lower appellate court that any loss or damage was caused to the plaintiff is not based upon any evidence on record. Plaintiff-respondent examined 5 witnesses in support of his case that defendants-appellants damaged and uprooted the crops standing on his plot. The witnesses are Baba Balram Das (P.W. 1), Shiv Singh (P.W. 2), the plaintiff himself, Mahabir Singh (P.W. 3), Rafiq Ahmad (P.W. 4) and Radhey Shyam (P.W. 5). A Vakil Commissioner had also gone on the spot and submitted a report that the crops standing on the plot in dispute were uprooted and damaged. The witnesses are Baba Balram Das (P.W. 1), Shiv Singh (P.W. 2), the plaintiff himself, Mahabir Singh (P.W. 3), Rafiq Ahmad (P.W. 4) and Radhey Shyam (P.W. 5). A Vakil Commissioner had also gone on the spot and submitted a report that the crops standing on the plot in dispute were uprooted and damaged. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the finding recorded by the appellate court that the defendants uprooted and damaged the crops standing on the plot in dispute is not based upon any evidence on record. The finding recorded by the appellate court that the loss was caused to the plaintiff by uprooting his crops standing on the plot in dispute is correct. Moreover, this being a finding of fact is not open to challenge in this court. Apart from above nothing has been pointed out that the finding of the appellate court in this regard is vitiated on account of other infirmity. 6. In view of above, there is no force in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.