contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the appeal, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that this Court, in the Regular Second Appeal, cannot interfere with the findings of fact, recorded by the first Appellate Court, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the same, were the result of misreading or misappreciation of evidence or law, on the point. No documentary evidence, was produced, by the plaintiffs, to prove, that they were the exclusive owners, in exclusive possession of the site, in dispute. Didar Singh, one of the plaintiffs, while appearing, as PW1, only stated, that he claimed himself to be the owner of the property, in dispute, as was told, to him, by his parents. During the course of cross-examination, it was stated by him, that a parnala of the house of Punjab Kaur and Sansar Singh, one of the defendants (now deceased), was towards the site, in dispute. He also admitted, during the course of his crossexamination, that there was no wall previously, at the place, where he was going to construct the same. Ajmer Singh, PW2, stated that, one door of the house of Resham Singh husband of Charan Kaur, defendant/respondent No. 2, and, one door of Sansar Singh, defendant/respondent No. 1 (now deceased), opened towards the disputed property. He also admitted, during the course of his crossexamination, that prior to the construction of the wall, shown red, in the site plan, whole of the property, in dispute, was in the shape of a taur. He also admitted it correct, during the course of his cross-
