JUDGMENT :

Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This civil second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.20, Jaipur Metropolitan, Heaquarter Chomu (for brevity, "the learned Appellate Court") in Civil Regular Appeal No.2/2017 whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff (for brevity, "the plaintiff"), the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No.25, Chomu, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") dismissing the Civil Suit No.198/2008 for declaration and permanent injunction, have been upheld.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants (for brevity, "the defendant") stating therein that she and the defendants no.1, 2, 5 to 12 are family members. It was averred that she has 1/9th share in the subject agricultural land, the self acquired property of her father Late Bhanwar Singh. It was alleged that the defendants no. 1 & 2, who are her nephews, have fraudulently got executed a relinquishment deed dated 22.10.2008 regarding her entire 1/9th share in their favour; whereas, she intended to relinquish only 1/36th share in their favour and 3/36th share in favour of the defendants no. 6 to 8. Alleging that the aforesaid release deed was null and void to the extent of her 3/36th share in the subject property, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for.

3. The defendants no. 1, 2 & 12 in their joint written statement, denied the averements made in the plaint.

4. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned trial Court framed four issues including relief. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2017 and the civil first appeal preferred thereagainst by the plaintiff has also been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.01.2018.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.01.2018, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the findings of the learned Courts are against the preponderance of probabilities in her favour. He submits that the learned Courts did not appreciate that she was able to establish from cogent evidence that the defendants no.1 & 2 fraudulently obtained release deed of her entire share in the subject property in their favour; whereas, she intended to release only 1/36th share in their favour. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2018 be quashed and set aside and the suit filed by her be decreed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Courts, would submit that since the civil second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, it deserves to be dismissed.

7. Heard. Considered.

8. While dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff, the learned trial Court has held that the plaintiff could not establish that the defendants no. 1 & 2 compelled her to execute the registered release deed dated 22.10.2008 against her wishes inasmuch as she has admitted that she has come to Chomu, where the subject deed was executed, from Nagaur through train and four wheeler; but, she did not raise any hue and cry at any point of time. Critically examining her cross-examination and that of the attesting witnesses to the relinquishment deed (Ex-1), i.e., S/Shri Surendra Singh (DW-3) & Laxman Singh (DW-4), it has been held that there was no material on record to establish that the plaintiff had executed the subject release deed in favour of the def