PRAKASH TATIA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants.

( 2 ) THE appellants are aggrieved against the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 9. 3. 2004 and judgment and decree of the appellate Court dated 27. 5. 2005.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of damages of Rs. 35,400 on allegation that defendants-appellants were tenant in the plaintiff-respondents house and they were evicted from the suit house in dispute in execution of the decree passed on 28th Oct. , 1996 in Civil Original suit No. 681/94 and against which, appeal and second appeal were also dismissed. In execution proceedings the plaintiff submitted an application for appointment of Commissioner, upon which, the executing Court ordered to record the general condition of the property while delivering possession of the house to the plaintiff. The report about the condition of the house was submitted before the executing court and it was found that defendants-tenants encroached upon some portion of the rented premises by allowing his brother defendant No. 2 to include some of the land i