JUDGMENTMUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--The suit filed by the respondent challenging the legality of demarcation proceeding conducted at the instance of the appellants was decreed by the learned trial Court by judgment dated 24.6.1978. The appeal filed by the appellants before the learned District Judge, Sialkot, has also been dismissed through impugned judgment dated 3.1.1979 which has been assailed in this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned lower appellate Court has not brought his independent mind to bear upon the points requiring determination in the case, therefore, the impugned judgment was no judgment in the eye of law as it did not satisfy the requirement of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.
3. The argument is not legally correct. I have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned lower appellate Court. It fully satisfies the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. The learned lower appellate Court discussed the facts of the case and has expressly noted the issues framed in the case and the controversy to be resolved. After appraising the evidence it was held that the finding of the learned trial Court recorded on various issues was correct. The evidence has also been discussed. The learned lower appellate Court as is manifest from the impugned judgment was fully concious of the real question in controversy between the parties. It has been held after elaborate and careful appraisal of evidence that the respondents were successful in proving that the demarcation was made in their absence. It was the demarcation from which the respondents were aggrieved which has been held to have been made in their absence. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, is repelled.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants then argued that the findings of the two Courts below are not correct. Learned counsel for the appellants failed to satisfy me that the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below were not legally justified. Learned counsel for theappellants could not point out any illegality committed by the two Courts below in arriving at concurrent findings of facts. No evidence has been shown to have been mis-read or mis-construed. The impugned judgments and decrees do not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appeal fails which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.