D.C.DALELA,J. - (1.) HEARD . The plaintiff-respondent had instituted a civil suit. for rent & ejectment on the ground of default in the payment of rent & personal bona fide necessity. That suit was dismissed by the learned trial court holding that there was no relationship of landlord & tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff-respondent thereupon instituted a second suit for possession & damages, on the ground that the defendant-appellant had not accepted himself as the tenant of the plaintiff and his possession is that of a trespasser. The learned trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate court, which has also dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved thereby the defendant-appellant has preferred this second appeal.
(2.) OUT of the nine questions framed by the appellant in the memo of the appeal eight are as under :- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the judgment and decrees of the courts below are perverse and irrational ? 2. Whether the judgments and decrees of the courts below are contrary to the preponderating weight of evidence on record ? 3. Whether the plaintiff having failed to establish the title of Zahoor Mohammad change and to and the suit for possession ought to have been dismissed ? 4. Whether the suit for declaration ought to have been filed without which the courts below should not have decided the title in the matter ? 5. Whether the plaintiff has proved his ownership ? 6. Whether the defendant-appellant is in the adverse possession of the suit- property ? 7. Whether the damages could be awarded by the courts below ? 8. Whether a decree for possession could have been passed by the courts below ? Evidently, all the above questions are questions of facts and require re- appreciation of evidence. It is well-settled in law that in second appeal no appreciation of evidence can be done, and the concurrent findings of facts cannot be upset. The findings of facts, based on appreciation of evidence cannot be upset by re-appreciation of evidence, in second appeal. The aforesaid eight questions, framed by the appellant do not involve any substantial question of law and it is well-known in law that in the absence of any substantial question of law, a second appeal cannot be entertained.
(3.) THE last question, framed by the appellant, in the memo of the appeal, is whether the present suit was barred under Order - 2. Rules - 2 and Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) ?;