' This second appeal was directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-7-1973 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, whereby the appeal of Fateh Khan respondent No,1 was accepted and resultantly the suit of Fateh Khan was decreed with costs.
2. The only issue under challenge before the Appellate Court was issue No,3 i,e, "Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property ?" This issue was discussed in detail by the learned Appellate Court. The evidence produced by the plaintiff as well as the defendants was discussed in detail and reasons were given for relying on the testimony of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff and discarding those of the defendants-respondents witnesses. Neither any misreading nor any non-reading of material piece of evidence could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. He, however, submitted that appraisal of the evidence made by the learned trial Court was more reasonable and as such interference in the conclusions recorded by the learned trial Court was not warranted. The very perusal of the discussion on issue No,3 of the learned trial Court would show that the evidence of defendants was not at all appraised. The evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses was discarded for the reason that they had contradicted each other on the question of time of occupation of the house in dispute by the defendants. The main question is of title and not of the occupation of the house in question. No criticism was, however, made by the learned trial Court on the statements pertaining to the question of title claimed by the plaintiff in the suit house. A perusal of the evidence as such by the learned trial Court was faulty. Moreover the appellate Court has the right to appraise the evidence of the parties and give its own conclusions.
These conclusions, however, must be based on the evidence. The conclusions recorded by the learned Appellate Court as are based on evidence are reasonable and there being neither any misreading nor any non-reading of any material piece of evidence, interference in second appeal is not warranted.
3. Lastly learned counsel argued that court-fee fixed on the plaint was not proper. This plea appears not to have been urged in the first appeal and as such the same cannot be allowed to be urged at this late stage.
4. For the reasons given above, this second appeal fails and is dismissed.
5. As none has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents to oppose the appeal, there will be no order as to costs.