JUDGMENT :

Pratap Krishna Lohra, J.

1. Appellant-plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal under Sec. 100 CPC to challenge judgment dt. 11.05.2017, passed by Additional District Judge No. 4, Bikaner (for short, 'learned lower appellate Court'), whereby learned lower appellate Court has affirmed judgment and decree dt. 15.05.2015, passed by Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Bikaner (for short, 'learned trial Court') dismissing their suit for declaring sale-deed dt. 15.10.1981 null and void and perpetual injunction.

2. The facts, in brief, are that appellants laid a suit against respondents, inter-alia, on the ground that sale-deed dt. 15.10.1981, pertaining to their agricultural land of village Bhanawtawala ki Rohi in Khasra Nos. 157, 438, 567/158, 639/381 ad-measuring 50 bighas barani land, was never executed by their father Sardar Shah. For challenging the sale-deed, precisely, it was pleaded in the plaint that at the time of execution of sale-deed, Sardar Shah was not alive, and therefore, the same is of no avail and consequence, so far as the Tights of appellant-plaintiffs are concerned. Besides that, the appellants have also prayed for grant of perpetual injunction.

3. The suit was contested by the respondent-defendants by refuting all the averments. Apart from joining issue with the appellants on merits, the defendants have also raised objection about suit being barred by limitation inasmuch as it was filed 30 years after execution of the sale-deed.

4. The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, settled six issues for determination. The rival parties led their evidence and also produced documentary evidence. After conclusion of the evidence, learned trial Court, at the threshold, proceeded to decide Issue Nos. 1 & 4 as both were interconnected and upon marshaling of evidence objectively, found that appellants have failed to prove the date of death of Sardar Shah prior to execution of sale-deed, i.e., 15.10.1981. The learned trial Court recorded a definite finding that the evidence, which is produced on behalf of appellants, is insufficient to prove that executant of the sale-deed was not alive on the crucial day. That apart, the trial Court also noticed, certain discrepancies in the statements of appellant No. 1 and other witnesses and finally recorded finding on Issue Nos. 1 & 4 against the appellants and in favour of respondents. While adverting to Issue No. 2, which was related to grant of perpetual injunction, the learned, trial Court found that in view of registered instrument and sans any cogent evidence to dislodge presumption about validity of registered instrument, appellants are not entitled for grant of perpetual injunction. The issue relating to limitation on the basis of evidence was decided in favour of the appellants. However, on the basis of findings on Issue Nos. 1, 2 & 4, the suit was dismissed.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of learned trial Court, appellants approached learned lower appellate Court and the learned lower appellate Court, upon examining the evidence de novo, has fully concurred with the findings and conclusions of learned trial Court on crucial issues, i.e., Issue Nos. 1, 2 & 4. The said findings eventually entailed rejection of the appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and also scanned record of the case.

7. There remains no quarrel that for maintaining second appeal an aggrieved party is required to plead and prove existence of substantial question of law. In the present matter, both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact based on sound appreciation of evidence. Although, learned counsel for the appellants has made an attempt to buttress some of the proposed substantial questions of law, but, I am afraid, in the backdrop of available material, these are not even questions of law much less substantial questions of law. The concurrent finding of both the Courts below is pure and simple finding o