Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that,

R.C.S. No. 179 of 2004 was filed by the appellants herein. The trial Court after recording the evidence and after appreciating the evidence partly decreed the suit. The defendants were directed to hand over the possession of 1.20 Acres land out of Gat No. 105 to the plaintiffs by leaving his land 1.80 Hector. Further, the defendants were restrained from interfering in remaining land of the plaintiffs and also the plaintiffs were given liberty to start separate enquiry for mesne profit under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. It is the contention of the Counsel for the appellants that, while reversing those findings, the lower appellate Court has not discussed the entire evidence including 7/12 extract at Exhibit8 which was placed on record. The lower appellate Court observed that, no any evidence is placed on record to show the ownership and possession of the appellants, therefore, the findings of the lower appellate Court are perverse and therefore, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that, the second appeal deserves consideration. It is further submi