JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - This is a second appeal of the plaintiffs appellants against the judgment and decree dated 14-5-1975 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in entirety. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit land for demolition of the suit wall claiming themselves to be the owners in possession of the suit land. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs. 3. The learned Munsif decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in part. The suit land towards the North extends upto the line, shown by letters 'AC' in the Commissioner's map (paper No. 98-A2) which form part of the decree. However, the learned Munsif took the view that only part of the suit land upto the line, shown by letters 'ka kha' which was drawn by him, belonged to the plaintiffs and that they were not owners in possession of the land, situate towards the North of the line, shown by letters 'Ka Kha'. He, therefore, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for recovery of possession over the suit land upto the line 'Ka Kha' and for demolition of the wall, situate towards the south of the line 'Ka kha.' 4. The dispute was carried in appeal by the defendants as well as by the plaintiff's. Whereas, the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs, the appeal of the defendants was dismissed. The appellate court clearly found that: "The evidence on record clearly shows that the plaintiff has not been able to prove their ownership and possession over any portion of land in suit for a period of 12 years. As such, it cannot be said that the plaintiff have perfected their right by adverse possession over any portion of land in suit." 5. The aforesaid finding is purely a finding of fact and no question of law arises therefrom. 6. However, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has taken an exception of the following observation of the appellate court : "It is not the case of either parties that the plaintiffs have taken adverse possession over any portion of plot No. 277/2 Thus, the above observation of the learned Munsif is presumptive one and based on guess and surmises." 7. 6. However, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has taken an exception of the following observation of the appellate court : "It is not the case of either parties that the plaintiffs have taken adverse possession over any portion of plot No. 277/2 Thus, the above observation of the learned Munsif is presumptive one and based on guess and surmises." 7. The submission of learned Counsel is that the appellate court was wrong in observing that no case of adverse possession was set up by the plaintiffs. Adverting to paragraph 7 of the plaint, learned counsel submitted that the case of adverse possession was clearly set up by the plaintiffs. It is true that the case of adverse possession taken up by the plaintiffs and to that extent the observation of the appellate court is erroneous. However, such observation does not affect the finding of fact, recorded by the appellate court. The latter has clearly found that the plaintiffs have failed to prove possession and adverse possession. Having given this finding, the erroeneous observation of the appellate court that no case of adverse possession was set up is wholly insignificant and that has to be ignored. 8. Next, it was argued by learned counsel for the plaintiffs that in a judgment of reversal, it is the duty of the appellate court to discuss the entire evidence and meet out all the reasonings of the trial court. On persual of the appellate court judgment, it clearly appears that the entire evidence was kept in view by the appellate court while reversing the judgment of the trial court. 9. For the reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the appellate court warranting any interference. 10. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The parties will however, bear their own costs of this appeal.