JUDGMENT S.K Dhaon, J. - This is a defendant's second appeal. The original plaintiff Mohd. Latif (since dead) instituted a suit during his life time inter alia, claiming the relief that the defendants may be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over a portion of a land marked as ABE in the map attached to the plain. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court have accepted the case set up by the plaintiffs that they are the owners in possession over the said piece of land. They have also negatived the plea of the defendants that they are the owners in possession of the said land. 2. The plaintiffs' case was that the plaintiffs are the owners of a land marked as FD. DI, AI AEKJ. The controversy centers found the triangular piece of land marked as ABE in the plaint map. The specific case taken up by the defendants was they had purchased the specific portion of the land marked as D DI A AI from the plaintiffs and also purchased a piece of land marked as DI C B and AI from one Ghafoor. In paragraphs 19 and 20 of the written statement the defendants took a specific case that they are purchasers of the land in dispute from the plaintiffs and they have been in continuous and joint enjoyment over the said land since they purchased the land from the plaintiffs. 3. The plaintiffs also led oral evidence of P. W. 1. P. W. 2. and P. W. 3. These witnesses had consistently deposed that the plaintiffs were in beneficial enjoyment of the land in dispute since long. The lower appellate court has emphasised upon two aspects. First, it has taken the view that in view of the specific case taken by the defendants that they were purchasers of the land in dispute from the plaintiffs, there was a clear admission on the part of the defendants that the plaintiff at one stage were the owners of the disputed land. Both the courts below have, after considering the documents, viz. the sale deed, come to the conclusion on that the defendants have not been able to establish that the land in dispute marked as ABE had been transferred to them through the sale deeds. Both the courts below have, after considering the documents, viz. the sale deed, come to the conclusion on that the defendants have not been able to establish that the land in dispute marked as ABE had been transferred to them through the sale deeds. The second aspect emphasised by the lower appellate court is that by means of oral evidence led by the plaintiffs it has been established that the land in dispute was in their enjoyment since long and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case indicates that this portion must have been under the ownership of the plaintiffs. 4 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Basically the findings recorded by the Courts below are one of fact. No illegality is discernible so as to entitle this Court to interfere under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. The appeal is dismissed with costs.