JUDGMENT R.R. Misra, J. - The plaintiff respondents filed a suit for possession over the disputed property. The trial court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the disputed land did lay in plot no. 876 but not in plot no. 877/1 and that the plaintiffs were owners to said land, hence the suit was decreed with costs ordering the defendants to remove the constructions etc. thereof. 2. Aggrieved against the same, the defendants filed an appeal, which has also been dismissed by the lower appellate court. Before the lower appellate court, an additional issue was also framed and evidence was led by the parties. The lower appellate court considered the said additional issue as well as the points raised before it and after appraisal of evidence on record recorded a finding of fact that the disputed property did lay in plot no. 876. For arriving at this conclusion it also considered the report of the Commissioner as well as other evidence on record. 3. I have heard learned counsel for appellants. I find that there is no substantial question of law involved in this case. 4. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed summarily.