ORDER

1. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal pertains to a parcel of land which was described in the plaintiff's suit as included in XIYIIFEDC of Ext. C-2. In respect of this land for which suit for declaration and injunction had been filed, the trial court, after remand, had held that the plaintiff was entitled to the declaration sought for. The lower appellate court by its judgment dated 5-2-1986 reversed the said decision and confined the declaration in favour of the plaintiff in respect of another parcel of land.

2. The High Court in second appeal by its judgment dated 22-8-1988 held that the adverse findings recorded against the appellant herein were pure findings of fact based upon acceptable evidence and supported by cogent and convincing reasons and, therefore, not open to attack. The High Court concluded that no question of law much less a substantial question of law arose.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are agreeable with the aforesaid observations of the High Court. The decision of the Additional District Judge did not give rise to any question of law. The said decision was based on the appreciation of evidence which was addu