( 1 ) DEFENDANTS have instituted this second appeal, as the Court of appeal below has reversed the findings as also the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The suit was for restoration of possession and permanent injunction, which was dismissed and in the appeal that was decreed.

( 2 ) THERE can be no doubt that any question germane for decision in this appeal is concluded by findings of fact by the Court below. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of his case that they had been possessing the suit land continuously over 30 years, and their further case that they were joint owners of the land with Rajaram from whom they purchased his half share and had become full owners of the property has also been disbelieved. The defendants, according to the plaintiffs, started interfering with their possession on 21-7-1970, when they were putting up a construction. The suit was filed on 9-9-1970. ( 3 ) ON re-appreciating the entire documentary and oral evidence, the Court of appeal below reached the categorical finding and concluded that the land had been in possession of the plaintiffs and they had obtained permission for raisi