R. B. MEHROTRA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by 2nd Additional District Judge Basti dated 28-5-1993 wherein 2nd Additional District Judge on appreciation of oral evidence and commissioners reports, decreed the plaintiffs suit for permanent injunction and directed the defendants to remove their brick stack etc. from the land in suit within a period of two months. 3. The first appellate court has reversed the findings of fact recorded by the trial court in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. 4. The parties are residents of village Dhanghata, tappa Mahso pargana Mahuli East of district Basti. The house, Sehan, Ghari and Charni of the plaintiff situate to the east of a kharanja which lies north-south in the village. The plaintiff claims that these things are coming down his posses sion from the time of his ancestors. The plaintiff was raising construction on the old foundation to the north of his house. The defendants filed original suit No. 107 of 1976 and obtained an ad interim injunction order in their favour. The plaintiff filed his objection against the said ex parte interim injunction order was subsequently vacated. The defendants appeal against the order vacating the injunction order was also dismissed. After dismissal of the appeal, the defendants started threatening to the plaintiff to close his door a. On 9-5-1976 the defendants raised a wall at point de shown in the plaint site plan. The plaintiff asked the defendants to remove the said wall. The defendants having not paid any heed to his request, the plaintiff filed the suit giving rise to the present second appeal for a direction that the defendants be directed by a mandatory injunction to remove the wall constructed on the disputed land. 5. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence and commissioners reports arrived at a conclusion that in view of the fact the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the disputed land by any documentary evidence and in view of the statements made by PW 1 and PW 2 and map 25-Ga, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is owner of the disputed land. 6. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the trial court the plaintiff filed a civil appeal in the court of District Judge, Basti. The IInd Additional District Judge, Basti, vide his judgment dated 28-5-1983, has allowed the appeal. The lower appellate court itself considered the circumstances that for the disputed land the defendants themselves had already filed another suit. There the defendants attempted to get an injunction order passed against the plaintiff restraining him from making construction over the land in suit but the assempt was ultimately unsuccessful and the interim order obtained by the defendants was vacated. The defendants had stacked bricks on the disputed land and had illegally constructed the wall. In the aforesaid back ground, the lower appellate court further considered the commissioners report and on the basis of the commissioners report, the lower appellate court recorded a finding that the Commissioners report clearly depicted that the wall in question lies to the north of the plaintiffs house. The Commissioner has also shown the places where the defendants stacked their bricks. It shows a Baithaka of the defendants lying to the west of the Kharanja facing towards north. Another Commissioners report also confirmed that the defendants had stacked bricks on the disputed land. After examining the Commissioners report, the lower appellate court examined the statements of the plaintiffs witnesses and the statements of the defendants witnesses. On appreciation of the evidence of the parties the lower appellate Court recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff has proved his user, possession and title over the disputed land and also recorded a finding that Paper No 25-Ga clearly shows that the defendants raised house No. 1 very recently and they have built an Ahata to the west of the said house and on the basis of the aforesaid facts, the lower appellate Court reached the conclusion that the defendants were not in use and occupation of the land lying to the east of the pavement. On the basis of actual assessment of the oral evidence and Commissioners reports, the lower appellate court arrived at a different conclusion than arrived at by the trial court and the lower appellate court recorded finding of fact that the plaintiff has proved his lawful possession over the land in dispute and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 7. On the basis of actual assessment of the oral evidence and Commissioners reports, the lower appellate court arrived at a different conclusion than arrived at by the trial court and the lower appellate court recorded finding of fact that the plaintiff has proved his lawful possession over the land in dispute and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants has cited before me AIR 1983 SC 114 - Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Narayani Bai and others, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held that "when there is conflict of oral evidence on any matter in issue and its resolution turns on credibility of the witness normal rule is that appellate court should permit the findings of fact rendered by the trial court to prevail unless it appears. . . . . . . . . . . . that there is sufficient balance of improbability to displace its opinion. . . . . . . . " The said decision has no application in the present matter. The trial court has not recorded any finding of fact on the basis of credibility of witnesses of the parties either on the basis of his observation of the witnesses in the court or on the basis of a ay conduct or behaviour of the witnesses. The first appellate court is as much a court of fact as the trial court and the first appellate court if perfectly within its jurisdiction to re- appraise and re-asses the oral as wail as documentary evidence. The first appellate court having examined the oral evidence of the parties in the context of the Commissioners reports, and anticedent circumstances of filing earlier suit by the same defendants for the disputed land and having failed there to obtain an exparte injunction started interfering in plaintiffs possession, arrived at a different conclusion of fact than that arrived at by the trial court not only on appreciation of oral evidence but on other facts also. No error can be pointed out in the judgment of the lower appellate court neither the judgment of the lower appellate court can be held to be vitiated in law. 8. No error can be pointed out in the judgment of the lower appellate court neither the judgment of the lower appellate court can be held to be vitiated in law. 8. On perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court, I am satisfied that the judgment is based purely on appreciation of evidence of parties and record finding of fact on the basis of appraisal of the evidence, I am satisfied that there is no illegality in the judgment of the lower appellate court calling for an interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Need not to stress that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present matter. 9. The appeal is dismissed with costs. The interim order dated 15-11-1984 is vacated. Appeal dismissed. .