ORDER : BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. The Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants-original defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2015 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2009, whereby, the Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal filed5 by the present respondent (original plaintiff) and partly set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 passed by the 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) in Civil Suit No. 71 of 2003. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff had filed the suit seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises from the appellants-original defendants alleging inter-alia that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1-2 were the brothers and the defendant no. 3 was the wife of the defendant no. 2. According to the plaintiff, his mother Puriben had purchased one plot bearing No. 64 through registered sale-deed executed on 04.10.1967 the plaintiff thereafter had constructed the house on the said plot from his own income. In the year 1987-88, the plaintiff had constructed first floor on the said house and permitted the defendants to reside on the ground floor. It was further case of the respondent-plaintiff that the mother Puriben thereafter had executed one registered sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff on 23.10.1997 and since then, the plaintiff had become the owner of the plot also. Since, the defendants had refused to vacate the suit premises, the suit was filed. The appellants-original defendants had resisted the suit by filing the written statement at Exh.11 denying the allegations more particularly that the house was constructed by the respondent-plaintiff from his own income. The defendants had also filed the counter claim at Exh.9 seeking declaration that the registered sale-deed dated 23.10.1997 executed by their mother was null and void. 3. It appears that the appellants-original defendants did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of their counter claim, therefore, the Trial Court dismissed their counter claim, however, the Trial Court also dismissed the suit of the respondent-original plaintiff vide the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2008 by holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the house was constructed by the plaintiff from his own income. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the respondent plaintiff had filed the appeal before the Appellate Court, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree, whereby the Appellate Court has directed the appellants to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent-plaintiff. 4. It is sought to be submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Pankaj Chaudhary for the appellants that the Appellate Court had committed an error in misappreciating the evidence on the record and in reversing the findings recorded by the Trial Court. According to him, the respondent had failed to prove that the house in question was constructed by him from his own income and he was the sole owner of the suit house. 5. The Court does not find any substance in the said submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Chaudhary for the appellants. Apart from the fact that the appellants- defendants had not produced any oral or documentary evidence in support of their counter claim, they had also not filed any appeal before the Appellate Court against the rejection of their counter claim. Under the circumstances, the evidence adduced by the respondent- original plaintiff had remained unchallenged and undisputed. The sale-deed dated 2 3.10.1997 executed by the mother Puriben in favour of the respondent plaintiff also remained undisputed before the Appellate Court. The Appellants had also not made any effort to produce any evidence before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court had therefore considering the evidence on the record, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent plaintiff, which judgment being just and proper, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Learned Advocate Mr. Chaudhary has also failed to point out any question of law, much less substantial question in the present Second Appeal. 6. Hence, the present Second Appeal being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.