JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment, order and decree dated 28/03/2012 passed by the learned District Judge-II, South Goa Margao (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 280 of 2010 and Judgment, order and Decree dated 30/04/2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (Trial Court) in Special Civil suit No. 189/1987/A. 3. The appellants were plaintiffs and the respondents were defendants in the said Special Civil Suit No. 189/1987/A. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said special suit. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,41,150/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, with effect from the date of filing of the suit till the date of recovery. 5. Case of the plaintiffs, in short, was as follows: The original plaintiff and the original defendant had entered into an agreement dated 19/11/1982 whereby the defendant had entrusted the work of construction of his house to the plaintiff. As per the said agreement, the plaintiff was required to construct the house consisting of ground floor and first floor with a built up area of 200 square metres at the cost of Rs. 3,00,005/- to be paid in installments as mentioned in the agreement. The construction was to be carried out as per the rates of the works and quantities mentioned in the schedule of the work annexed to the agreement. The defendant orally modified the agreement and asked the plaintiff to do additional work and as per modified work, the defendant had to pay to the plaintiff an amount of Rs. 5,26,325/-. The defendant did not make payments as per the terms of the agreement and the work remained incomplete. The defendant committed breach of contract. The plaintiff addressed a notice dated 13/02/1984 to the defendant informing that the work could not be continued on account of non-payment of the amount of the extra work done. The defendant replied the said notice by reply dated 02/03/1984 alleging that the amounts have been paid as per the agreement. Again on 13/04/1984, the plaintiff addressed another notice stating that he has not been paid for 60% of the extra work done by him. The defendant replied the said notice by reply dated 02/03/1984 alleging that the amounts have been paid as per the agreement. Again on 13/04/1984, the plaintiff addressed another notice stating that he has not been paid for 60% of the extra work done by him. Lastly, on 12/10/1984, the plaintiff addressed another notice calling upon the defendant to pay the said amount within seven days. The said notices have not been replied by the defendant. The plaintiff completed the major work in the month of June 1983. He had kept some materials like tiles for making floor and wood for making doors and windows at the site and also other construction material. When the plaintiff tried to remove the said material, the defendant objected. The plaintiff had also sold an old motorcycle to the defendant at a nominal rate. Hence, the suit. 6. The original defendant, in his written statement, denied the case of the plaintiff. The defendant alleged that the breach was committed by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has been paid for the works carried out by him. 7. The learned Trial Court framed issues as per the rival contentions of the parties. The said issues are as follows: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the original agreement was modified orally on the defendant's request for additional construction? 2. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant agreed to pay for additional work as per rates mentioned in original agreement? 3. Whether plaintiff proves that total cost of construction was fixed at Rs. 4,57,500/- for 305 square metres? 4. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant defaulted in payment of installments and for additional work? 5. Whether plaintiff proves that his construction material worth Rs. 30,000/- was lying on the suit site? 6. Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants Rs. 1,41,150/- with interest at the rate of 18% per year? 7. Whether defendant proves that modification to original agreement was done at the instance of plaintiff? 8. Whether defendant proves that plaintiff abandoned the work at incomplete stage and the workmanship was very poor? 9. What order and decree? 8. In the judgment dated 30/04/2001, the learned Trial Court framed an additional issue “as to whether the defendant proves that the suit is barred by law of limitation”. 9. 8. Whether defendant proves that plaintiff abandoned the work at incomplete stage and the workmanship was very poor? 9. What order and decree? 8. In the judgment dated 30/04/2001, the learned Trial Court framed an additional issue “as to whether the defendant proves that the suit is barred by law of limitation”. 9. Upon consideration of entire material on record, the learned Trial Court found that there was nothing in writing in respect of the alleged additional construction to be carried out by the plaintiff. It further found that the agreement did not speak of fixing of the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per square metre. The Trial Court held that though the plaintiff could prove that the original agreement was modified orally at the request of the defendant for additional construction and the defendant agreed to pay for the said additional work, however, the plaintiff failed to prove that the total cost of construction was fixed at Rs. 4,57,500/- for 305 square metres. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff had proved that the defendant defaulted in payment of installments and for additional work. The plaintiff could not prove that his construction material worth Rs. 30,000/- was lying at the site. The Trial Court also held that the suit was barred by law of limitation. The issues no. 1, 2, and 4 were answered in the affirmative; issue no 8 was answered partly in the affirmative whereas issues no 3, 5, 6 and 7 came to be answered in the negative. The additional issue of limitation was also answered in the affirmative. The plaintiff ultimately could not prove that he was entitled to recover from the defendant the sum of Rs. 1,41,150/-. The suit, therefore, came to be dismissed. 10. Against the judgment and decree dated 30/04/2001 of the Trial Court, the plaintiffs filed the Regular Civil Appeal No. 280 of 2010, before the learned District Judge, South Goa, at Margao. The learned First Appellate Court formulated the following points for determination: 1. Whether the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that he is entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,41,150/-with interest at the rate of 18% per annum? 2. Whether the learned trial Judge has erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree? The First Appellate Court observed that the suit filed by the plaintiff was for recovery of money on the basis of modified agreement dated 19/11/1982. 1,41,150/-with interest at the rate of 18% per annum? 2. Whether the learned trial Judge has erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree? The First Appellate Court observed that the suit filed by the plaintiff was for recovery of money on the basis of modified agreement dated 19/11/1982. The First Appellate Court further found that the agreement did not say that the construction was to be carried out at the rate of Rs. 1,500/-per square metre. It was found that the agreement merely specified a total figure for construction of an area of 200 square metres and there was no clause in the agreement to show that the construction was to be carried out at a particular rate per square metre. Upon re-appreciation of oral evidence on record, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove the exact area of the extra work done by him. It was found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the total construction of work was fixed at Rs. 4,57,500/- and that an area of 305 square metres had been constructed. The First Appellate Court further found that the plaintiff could not prove that the defendant had failed to make payment in respect of the additional area. It was found that though the defendant had admitted that an area of 60 square metres was constructed additionally, however, the plaintiff had been paid for the same. It was further found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the construction material worth Rs. 30,000/- was lying at the site. The First Appellate Court found that the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court was well reasoned and did not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal was dismissed. 11. Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, submitted that indisputably there was modification of the work and change in agreement. He pointed out that the defendants had at least admitted about additional work of 60 square metres. According to him, it was proved that the rates were as per the original agreement. Learned Counsel questioned as to why the defendants did not state as to what was the rate agreed for extra work. He took me through the Judgment of the Trial Court and showed that the issues no. 1 and 2 have been answered in the affirmative. Learned Counsel questioned as to why the defendants did not state as to what was the rate agreed for extra work. He took me through the Judgment of the Trial Court and showed that the issues no. 1 and 2 have been answered in the affirmative. He invited my attention to the said agreement which is on record and submitted that in the said agreement item rates were given in detail and, therefore, one could calculate the total rate of the construction. He submitted that by doing the said calculation the rate comes to Rs. 1,500/- per square metre. Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that the plaintiffs ought to have been granted a sum of at least Rs. 90,000/- with interest. According to the learned Counsel, the defendants could prove payment of Rs. 2,80,000/- though admittedly they had to pay Rs. 3,00,005/- for original work. According to the learned Counsel, the plaintiffs were claiming only for the work completed and not for the work which was left incomplete. He further urged that the Trial Court wrongly held that the suit was barred by Law of Limitation. He submitted that Article 18 of the Limitation Act was not applicable and that it was Article 55 which was applicable. He submitted that final bill was not prepared in this case and the plaintiffs were still corresponding with the defendant. He submitted that non-payment was breach of contract. He submitted that the plaintiff had given the first notice dated 13/02/1984 asking for payment and, therefore, that was the date for starting of limitation period. Learned Counsel relied upon the judgment dated 09/06/2000 of Karnataka High Court, in R.F.A. No. 442/93, between “G. C. Nagaraju Vs. The Executive Engineer, Mysore Division and another”. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs read out the substantial questions framed at paragraph 9 in the Memo of Appeal. He also submitted that additional substantial questions of law arise to the effect: (i) whether the Trial Court was right in holding that the suit was barred under the law of limitation and (ii) whether the First Appellate Court erred in not giving any finding on the issue of limitation, when the finding of the Trial Court, in this regard was challenged in this second appeal. Learned Counsel urged that all the above substantial questions of law be framed, in view of the submissions made by him. 12. Learned Counsel urged that all the above substantial questions of law be framed, in view of the submissions made by him. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants, submitted that a bare perusal of the judgments of the lower Courts reveals that there are concurrent findings of facts which cannot be termed as perverse or arbitrary or illegal and no substantial question of law arises. He pointed out that the calculation of the total of rates as per the items mentioned in the schedule was Rs. 3,45,000/- whereas in terms of clause 1 of the agreement, the payment of lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,005/- was agreed upon. He therefore urged that the independent item wise rates mentioned in the said schedule had vanished since the parties had agreed for lump sum payment and the question of paying at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per square metre did not arise. Learned Counsel submitted that after June 1983, no work of whatsoever nature was done by the plaintiffs and in the letter dated 02/04/1984 (Exhibit PW1/D), the plaintiffs had themselves stated that the defendants had paid to them the installments as per the contract up to June 1983. He further pointed out from the same letter darted 02/04/1984 (Exhibit PW1/D) that the plaintiffs had requested the defendants that they may be paid, for the extra work, as per the item rate as in the contract. Learned Counsel, therefore, urged that the said statement in the above letter is admission of the fact that there was no agreement oral or written regarding the payment at a particular rate. According to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants, the appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed summarily. 13. I have gone through the entire material on record and I have also considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties. 14. According to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants, the appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed summarily. 13. I have gone through the entire material on record and I have also considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties. 14. Insofar as the first substantial question of law, as sought to be raised in paragraph 9(a) of the appeal memo, to the effect whether the First Appellate Court had failed to perform its duty under Order 41 of C.P.C. inasmuch as besides framing general points, it did not frame the points for determination which arose in the facts and circumstances of the case, is concerned, in my view, since the points framed were to the effect: (i) whether the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving that they are entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,41,150/-with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and (ii) whether the Trial Court had erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree, there was substantial compliance with the provisions of Rule 31 of Order 41 of C.P.C.. 15. The second question as framed in paragraph 9(b) of the memo of appeal is a question of fact and not of law. The learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, submitted that the finding of the First Appellate Court that the plaintiffs have not proved that construction was to be carried out at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per square metre is perverse since the Trial Court had answered the issue no. 2 in the affirmative holding that the plaintiffs had proved that the defendants agreed to pay for additional work as per the rates mentioned in the original agreement. In this regard, learned Counsel contended that in the written statement, the defendants did not deny that the rate was Rs. 1,500/-per square metre. He pointed out that in her deposition, DW1 had admitted that the rate of construction was Rs. 1,500/-per square metre. A perusal of the written statement reveals that the defendants did not deny the fact that the rates of the works and the quantity was mentioned in the schedule of the agreement. The same could not have been denied since that was a fact apparent on the face of that agreement. Whether the said rates mentioned in the schedule cumulatively made for the rate of Rs. The same could not have been denied since that was a fact apparent on the face of that agreement. Whether the said rates mentioned in the schedule cumulatively made for the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per square metre or not is not material since the parties did not agree to adhere to the said individual rates. On the contrary, the parties specifically agreed for lump sum payment of Rs. 3,00,005/-. There was no agreement for paying at the rate of particular sum per square metre or at particular rate per item. In paragraph 6 of the plaint, the plaintiffs claimed that due to additional work, the total cost of construction rose from Rs. 3,00,005/- to Rs. 5,26,325/- but since the plaintiffs took the contract on random basis i.e. at the rate of 1,500/- per square metre, the total cost of 305 square metres was fixed at Rs. 4,57,500/-. The contents of paragraph 6 of the plaint as above, have been specifically denied by the defendants in paragraph 4 of the written statement. The defendants denied that the work of construction done by the plaintiffs was worth Rs. 5,26,325/-or that the same was worth even Rs. 3,00,005/-. Thus, the contention of learned Counsel for the plaintiffs that there is no denial, in the written statement, to the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per square metre, for the additional work, is nor correct. In her cross-examination, DW1, the defendant no. 1(f) had admitted that as per the original agreement, the defendants were to pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 1,500/- per square metre. This was because the lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,005/- for 200 square metres of plinth area makes an amount of approximately Rs. 1,500/- per square metre. The agreement dated 19/11/1982 was produced on record as Exhibit PW1/A and there was no dispute about the terms and conditions mentioned therein. No amount of oral evidence could substitute those terms and conditions. The agreement specifically and unambiguously showed that what was agreed was the lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,005/- and not the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per square metre. Further, it is pertinent to note that DW1 specifically denied the suggestion that under mutual agreement, the plaintiffs agreed to work with the same rate of Rs. 1,500/- for extra work for the additional area of 100 square metres. 3,00,005/- and not the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per square metre. Further, it is pertinent to note that DW1 specifically denied the suggestion that under mutual agreement, the plaintiffs agreed to work with the same rate of Rs. 1,500/- for extra work for the additional area of 100 square metres. Be that as it may, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the defendants, in the letter dated 02/04/1984 (Exhibit PW1/D), the original plaintiff instead of saying that he should be paid for the extra work at the rate already agreed i.e. Rs. 1,500/- per square metre, requested the original defendant by saying “I may be paid as per the item rate as in the contract”. This means that no rate was actually fixed. 16. The original defendant, through his notice dated 02/07/1984, sent, through Advocate, to the original plaintiff, had admitted that the plaintiff had carried out additional work covering 60 square metres. DW1, the defendant no. 1(f), in her deposition, had also admitted that the extra work to the extent of 60 square metres was done by the plaintiff. Nowhere, the defendants admitted that the rate of construction for additional work, which according to them was for an area of 60 square metres, was agreed at Rs. 1,500/- per square metre. Be that as it may, according to the defendants, they had paid the plaintiffs fully for all the works. The defendants alleged that they had paid a total amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- to the plaintiffs. Insofar as the amount of Rs. 2,80,000/-, the defendants stated that receipts were issued by the plaintiff whereas in respect of remaining Rs. 5,000/-, they stated that this amount was paid to the plaintiff on 02/02/1984 at their house for which no receipt was issued. The plaintiffs, however, stated that the value of the actual work done by them including the additional work was Rs. 3,58,000/- and that the defendants paid to them an amount of Rs. 2,58,000/-. Thus the balance towards actual work, according to the plaintiffs was Rs. 1,00,000/-. They claimed Rs. 30,000/- towards the value of centering material kept at the site. That made the total balance as 1,30,000/-. Lastly, the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 10,150/- towards estimated loss of profits which otherwise they would have allegedly made on the remaining work. That made the total balance amount claimed, as Rs. 1,40,150/-. 1,00,000/-. They claimed Rs. 30,000/- towards the value of centering material kept at the site. That made the total balance as 1,30,000/-. Lastly, the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 10,150/- towards estimated loss of profits which otherwise they would have allegedly made on the remaining work. That made the total balance amount claimed, as Rs. 1,40,150/-. But, ultimately, in the prayer clause, the plaintiffs claimed the total amount of Rs. 1,41,150/-. In the cross-examination of PW1, the defendants produced nine receipts as Exhibit PW1/D-1/colly, which showed that the original plaintiff had received from the original defendant a total sum of Rs. 2,80,000/-. PW1 admitted the signature of the original plaintiff on the said receipts. Thus, the case of the plaintiffs was hit by inherent falsities and hence could not have been believed. Admittedly, there was no written agreement for the said additional work. The agreement regarding the additional work was oral. Hence the plaintiffs had to prove the said oral agreement, at least insofar as the rate of 1,500/- per square metre. The finding of the Trial Court to the effect that the defendant agreed to pay for the additional work as per the rates mentioned in the original agreement was not based on any evidence on record. On the contrary, the same was a presumption on account of absence of any written agreement. The said finding cannot be said to be correct. The substantial question as sought to be raised by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, as above, does not survive. 17. It was another contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs that the Appellate Court was wrong in dismissing the entire claim in the suit, which was based on the fact that the appellant had carried out extra construction for an area of 100 square metres over and above 200 square metres agreed upon in the original agreement, when the defendants clearly admitted additional work for an area of 60 square metres area therefrom. Learned Counsel further argued that the finding of the Appellate Court that the plaintiffs were fully paid for doing the additional work was without there being any evidence on record and was perverse. The above are the third and fourth questions, as mentioned in paragraph 9 (c) and 9(d), sought to be raised, as substantial questions of law. The same are also not the questions of law, but of facts. The above are the third and fourth questions, as mentioned in paragraph 9 (c) and 9(d), sought to be raised, as substantial questions of law. The same are also not the questions of law, but of facts. In this regard, it is true that the defendants had agreed that the additional (extra) work was done by the plaintiffs to the extent of an area of 60 square metres. But that was not the case of the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs was that they had carried out additional work of an area of 105 square metres over the area of 200 square metres as specified in the original agreement. However, the plaintiffs could not prove as to what type of work was actually done in the said area of 60 square metres. Hence when there was no proof of oral agreement for payment at the rate of Rs. 1,500/-per square metre, it could not be known as to what exactly would be the amount payable to the plaintiffs for the said work. It was the case of the plaintiffs that due to additional work, the total construction rose from Rs. 3,00,005/- to Rs. 5,26,325/-, but since the plaintiffs took the contract on random basis i.e. at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per square metre, the total cost of 305 square metres was fixed at Rs. 4,57,500/-. The plaintiff, according to both the courts below, failed to prove the above facts as pleaded. The above concurrent finding is on the basis of the appreciation and re-appreciation of the evidence of both the parties and cannot at all be called as perverse. Besides the above, it was the case of the defendants that they had paid for all the works. PW1, the plaintiff no. 1(f), at page no. 2 of her deposition, stated that in the month of June 1983, the entire work was completed except fixing of tiles and doors. Again, at page no. 5, PW1 deposed that in the month of June 1983, the construction of the suit house was almost completed and only the windows, doors and tiles were remained to be fitted. At page no. 6 of her deposition, PW1 confirmed that after June, 1983, no other work was performed and that plastering of the entire building including the internal portion was completed in June, 1983. At page no. 6 of her deposition, PW1 confirmed that after June, 1983, no other work was performed and that plastering of the entire building including the internal portion was completed in June, 1983. In the cross-examination PW1 admitted that in June 1983, the electrical work was not carried out in the suit house. PW1 has further stated that the doors and windows were not fixed. A suggestion was put to PW1 that the work of plastering, Niru finish, painting, fixing of the grills and fitting of electrical fixtures and wiring was not done by the plaintiff. PW1 denied the above suggestion. Thus, admittedly, entire work was not completed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the question of payment of the entire lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,005/- did not arise. What was the extent of the incomplete work was not established by the plaintiffs. In the first letter dated 13/02/1984 (Exhibit PW1/B), the plaintiff alleged that the progress of the construction of the residential house of the defendant was stand still due to non-payment of the installments. But, in the subsequent letter dated 02/04/1984, at Exhibit PW1/D, the original plaintiff admitted that the original defendant had paid to the plaintiff the installments as per the contract, up to June 1983, for the work done by him. Thus, the plaintiff himself was not certain as to whether he was fully paid or not. The concurrent finding of the lower Courts to the effect that the plaintiff was fully paid for all the works done, cannot therefore be termed as perverse. Hence, both the substantial questions, sought to be raised, as above, on the basis of alleged admission of the defendants that additional work for an area of 60 square metres was done and on the ground that there was no evidence on record regarding payment for the same, do not arise. 18. The fifth question sought to be raised as substantial question of law, as mentioned in paragraph 9(e) of the memo of appeal is whether the First appellate Court ignored clause 4 of the development agreement, which gave a clear indication that the defendants had obligation to make the various installments only on completion of various stages of construction specified therein and therefore, accepting the case of the defendants itself, the payment of Rs. 2,85,000/-clearly admitted that the entire work of the building except the internal work was completed and that the construction could not progress on account of the non-payment of consideration of the extra area constructed by the plaintiffs. As already discussed above, all works were not completed and several things were left incomplete. According to DW1, the defendant no. 1(f), the plaintiff did not bring tiles for flooring nor fixed the same. The plaintiff did not bring grills nor fixed the same. The plaintiff did not bring doors and windows and did not fix them. DW1 deposed that in the toilet and bathroom, plumbing work was not done. According to DW1, Niru finishing was not done to the dining hall, bedroom and entrance. The kitchen and toilets were nor plastered at all. DW1 stated that no plastering was done to the bathrooms and toilets on the first floor and no electrification was done to the said construction. According to DW1, in the month of November, 1984, they brought cement, sand wood, grills, tiles, plumbing materials, etc., out of their money and completed the construction work by September 1986. They also got did the work of painting and electrification from their own money. According to DW1, actually, the defendants paid excess amount to the plaintiffs and therefore they do not owe anything to them. 19. Insofar as PW1, the plaintiff no 1(c) is concerned, She was 28 years old at the time of her deposition and hence was only about 11 years old at the time of the transaction and thus, could not be expected to know the facts personally. But, DW1, the defendant no 1(f), who was 38 years old at the time of her deposition, specifically stated that during the period of said transaction, she was staying with her father and hence personally knows about the facts. 20. Since, in terms of the impugned Judgments, based on the evidence of the parties, it was held to have been established that the plaintiffs were paid for all the works done by them, the above, question of facts as sought to be raised in paragraph 9(e), does not arise. 21. I have gone through the judgment dated 09/06/2000 of the Karnataka High Court, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs. The Trial Court held that the suit was barred by law of limitation. 21. I have gone through the judgment dated 09/06/2000 of the Karnataka High Court, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs. The Trial Court held that the suit was barred by law of limitation. But the First Appellate Court did not go into that question, though it ought to have given its finding on the same. Be that as it may, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the defendants, since ultimately, the decree as passed by both the Courts below cannot be set aside, the question of framing of the substantial question of law on the point of limitation does not arise. 22. There are concurrent findings of facts rendered by both the Courts below to the effect that the plaintiffs could not prove that material worth Rs. 30,000/- was lying at the site and that the defendants were liable to pay the said sum to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also could not prove that they would have made profit of Rs. 10, 150/-from the additional work which remained to be done. The above are also findings of facts. The above findings of facts cannot be termed as perverse or arbitrary or illegal. 23. Upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record, adduced by the parties, the Trial Court was fully convinced with the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover from the defendant Rs. 1,41,150/- with interest at the rate of 18 % per annum. Issue no. 6, as framed by the Trial Court was therefore answered in the negative. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, the First Appellate Court also held that the plaintiffs could not prove that they are entitled to receive Rs. 1,41,150/-plus interest from the defendants. These finding of facts are neither perverse nor arbitrary. No substantial question of law arises in the present case. The appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed. 24. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.