JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - Present execution second appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Sangrur vide which appeal filed by the decree-holder against acceptance of objections by the executing court was accepted. 2. The decree-holder in pursuance to the order of ejectment having been passed against respondent No. 2, moved an application for execution of the order of eviction. However, due to the obstruction raised by Kuldeep Singh husband of the objector appellant, the police help was sought. The warrant of possession could not be executed even thereafter. The objectors-appellants moved an application raising objection that Satbir Kaur was in possession of the property in her own right and, therefore, order of eviction cannot be executed against her. The learned executing Court framed the following issues, on the pleadings raised by the parties :- 1. Whether objector Satbir Kaur is in possession of shop in question and is running business in said shop in name and style of M/s. Bajwa Trading Company, Sangrur ? OP-objector Satbir Kaur. 2. Whether objector Kuldeep Singh took shop in dispute on rent from Decree- holder through its manager on 25.2.2004 ? OP-objector Kuldeep Singh. 3. Whether objections are false and frivolous and same are liable to be dismissed ? OP-DH 4. Whether objectors have got no concern with shop in dispute ? OP-DH. 5. Relief. 3. The learned executing Court on the basis of material placed on record i.e. income tax return and other evidence came to the conclusion that the objectors-appellants were in possession of the shop in dispute and were running the business in said shop in name and style of M/s. Bajwa Trading Company, Sangrur. On issue No. 2, it was also decided in favour of the objectors and it was held that Kuldeep had taken the shop in dispute on rent from decree-holder through its manager on 25.2.2004. Issue No. 3 was decided against the decree-holder. Similarly, issue No. 4 was also decided in favour of the objector and consequently, objections were allowed and execution application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned District Judge on appreciation of evidence has recorded a finding that the objectors have failed to prove their possession on the shop in dispute in any capacity. Similarly, issue No. 4 was also decided in favour of the objector and consequently, objections were allowed and execution application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned District Judge on appreciation of evidence has recorded a finding that the objectors have failed to prove their possession on the shop in dispute in any capacity. In order to come to this conclusion the learned District Judge has taken into consideration the evidence produced by the objectors on record including the income tax returns filed by objector-Satbir Kaur. 4. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal primarily on the ground that in the evidence led by the objector she has failed to prove as to how she came in possession of the property. It was also noticed that she failed to prove as to what type of business was carried out by her. It was also noticed that a rent note was got prepared by Kuldeep Sigh husband of the objector, who on an earlier occasion had appeared as a witness in the eviction petition on behalf of the tenant. 5. The stand of the objector that she was put in possession in view of the partnership deed executed by her husband Kuldeep Singh was disbelieved as the rent note was got prepared by Kuldeep Singh in his favour subsequent to passing of the decree. 6. It was on the appreciation of evidence that the learned lower appellate Court has been pleased to record a finding that the objector appellant failed to prove her possession as the evidence led by her did not inspire confidence to objection petition, therefore, was ordered to be dismissed. 7. Mr. V.M. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that once the objector was proved to be in possession of the property she had the right to protect her possession being 3rd party. It was claimed that her possession was in her independent capacity and in support of this contention reliance was placed on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Prataprai N. Kothari v. John Braganza, 1999(2) Civil Court Cases 568 (SC). 8. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside as the learned lower appellate Court has completely ignored the documentary evidence produced on record. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside as the learned lower appellate Court has completely ignored the documentary evidence produced on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was mere non-mentioning of the shop number in the income tax return would not lead to the conclusion that the objector has failed to connect her business with the shop in dispute. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that even if the shop number was not mentioned, the evidence led could not be disbelieved. The learned counsel for the appellants also argued that even in the report of Bailiff, no shop number is mentioned and, therefore, the finding of the learned lower appellate Court is liable to be reversed. 9. I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned lower appellate Court has considered the documentary and oral evidence led by the parties. The learned lower appellate Court was fully justified in disbelieving the stand of the objector in view of the fact that she had shown complete ignorance about the type of business being carried on by her. The stand was rightly found to be false as subsequent to the passing of the decree husband of the objector had got a rent deed prepared in his favour and on the basis of said rent deed the possession was shown to be that of the objector under the said deed. The very fact, the rent note had got prepared in 2004 i.e. after issuance of warrant of possession. The finding recorded by the learned lower appellate Court ought to be upheld. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has not application to the facts of the present case as the learned lower appellate Court has disbelieved the story set up by the objector that she was in possession of the property. It was finally contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned lower appellate Court was not justified in upsetting the judgment by disbelieving the evidence which was believed by the trial Court. It was finally contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned lower appellate Court was not justified in upsetting the judgment by disbelieving the evidence which was believed by the trial Court. This contention is also misconceived as the learned lower appellate Court is final court of fact and it was open to the learned lower appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence brought on record and re-assess the same to come to the right conclusion. The finding recorded by the learned lower appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse or suffering from any illegality which may call for interference by this Court in the second appeal. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.