JUDGMENT 1. - The present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.2.1986 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, No. 1, Alwar in Civil Appeal No. 15/83, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.1.1983 passed by the learned Additional Munsiff, Laxmangarh has been affirmed although the learned lower appellate Court while affirming the judgment and decree dated 25.1.1983 modified the amount of damages. 2. Aggrieved against the modification of judgment and decree under appeal passed by the learned lower appellate Court, this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant. 3. It is pertinent to mention that irrespective of due service upon the respondents, they have neither engaged any counsel on their behalf to do 'Pairvi' in the case nor they appeared in person in Court, therefore, I propose to proceed ex parte against them as contemplated under sub-rule (2) of R. 17 of 0. 41, CPC. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. P.C. Jain. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that learned lower appellate Court has committed error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. Suffice it to say in this regard that this Court has inherent limitation in setting aside the findings of fact recorded by the learned lower appellate Court on the question of damages on the ground of reappraisal of evidence as reappraisal of evidence is not possible in the present second appeal. 6. I am of the view that the finding recorded by the learned lower appellate court modifying the decree passed by the learned trial Court on the question of damages, is based on the materials available on record. The learned lower appellate Court has considered the oral statement given by Nawal Kishore Patwari who was examined as PW 4. Learned lower appellate Court has committed no error in relying upon the statement given by Nawal Kishore on Path. As a matter of fact, the oral statements given by other witnesses produced by the plaintiff-appellant are found to be wholly inconsistent with with the evidence Ex. 2, where Arhar crop was sown in Aaraji or Khasra No. 347 measuring 3 Biswas only whereas in the plaint, it was alleged that Arhar crop was sown in the entire plot measuring 2 Bighas 10 Biswas. 7. 2, where Arhar crop was sown in Aaraji or Khasra No. 347 measuring 3 Biswas only whereas in the plaint, it was alleged that Arhar crop was sown in the entire plot measuring 2 Bighas 10 Biswas. 7. I am of the view that the learned lower appellate Court has modified the decree passed by arned trial Court after giving cogent and convincing reasons. The finding record by the learned lower appellate Court on the point of damages up to Rs. 57.50 is based on evidence available on record. The learned lower appellate Court has committed no error in disbelieving the plaintiff's witnesses whose statements were fou d to be inconsistent to the documentary evidence Ex. 2.As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the instant second appeal lacks merit and hereby dismissed. Since the respondents have not appeared to oppose the instant Second appeal before this Court, therefore, cost is made easy.Second Appeal Dismissed. *******