Short Note : Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that they are the owners of the suit land and in possession of the same. The order dated 27-12-61 passed in Criminal Case No. 65 of 1960 and the order dated 23-4-62 passed in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 1962 are of no consequence and not binding on them. They also claimed issue of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit land. 2. Plaintiffs alleged that the suit land belonged to the joint family property. Plaintiff No. 1 as karta of the joint Hindu family secured a loan of Rs. 1,600 from the defendant No. 1 who is money-lender. The defendant No. 1 got a document (Ex.D-5) dated 20-7-58 executed in his favour by the plaintiff No. 1 as a sale-deed in relation to the suit land under misrepresentation practicing fraud. The plaintiffs came to know this fact when after repayment of the loan the defendant No. 1 avoided to return the said document on one pretext or the other. The refusal to return the document (Ex.D-5) dated 20-7-58 led to the complaint on the part of the plaintiffs to the Collector, Raipur, and also to the above referred proceedings in which the plaintiffs remaining unsuccessful sought the relief for their claim by filing the present suit. The defendants in their joint written statement disputed the claim of the plaintiffs and asserted their own right over the suit land having got the possession of it in the part performance of their contract for sale in pursuance of the sale-deed dated 20-7-58 executed by the plaintiff No. 1 in favour of the defendant No.2 for a consideration of Rs. 1,600. They denied the allegation of fraud and misrepresentation. They further pleaded that the plaintiffs were barred under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act to bring the present suit and also that the suit as framed was not maintainable. A plea of limitation was also raised. 3. 1,600. They denied the allegation of fraud and misrepresentation. They further pleaded that the plaintiffs were barred under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act to bring the present suit and also that the suit as framed was not maintainable. A plea of limitation was also raised. 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the sale-deed (Ex.D-5) of the suit land was not secured by fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the defendants and as such title validly passed in favour of the defendants who had also secured possession of the suit land, in pursuance thereof and as such provisions of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act being applicable it barred the plaintiffs from enforcing against the defendants any right or interest in the suit land. That Court also held that the price paid for the suit land in the sale-deed was adequate and the transaction entered into through that document was binding on he plaintiffs which conferred a valid title on defendant No.2. The suit was held as within time and maintainable. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs before the lower appellate Court having been dismissed they have come up in the present second appeal. Held : Having heard learned counsel of the parties, I am of opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and as such it must be dismissed. The first contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs was that the finding of the lower appellate Court about fraud and misrepresentation is not correct. It is suffice to be mentioned here that the finding in that regard of the lower appellate Court would be a finding of fact and binding in second appeal. I could not be shown from the evidence on record that the said finding was un-warranted. This contention is accordingly rejected. 4. The second contention of the learned counsel was that the lower appellate Court was in error in holding that plea of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act was available to the defendants in the instant case to protect their possession over the suit land. This contention is accordingly rejected. 4. The second contention of the learned counsel was that the lower appellate Court was in error in holding that plea of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act was available to the defendants in the instant case to protect their possession over the suit land. On the basis of the evidence on record both the Courts below have concurrently held that document (Ex.D-5) dated 20-7-58 was a sale-deed and the plaintiffs also received the consideration for the alienation of the suit property mentioned therein and in pursuance of that sale-deed possession of the suit property was also handed over to the defendants. All these findings would be findings of facts not open to challenge in second appeal as before me the interpretation of sale-deed was not involved. All that was contended to challenge the sale-deed on behalf of the plaintiffs was that the sale deed was secured by the defendants by playing fraud and misrepresentation which allegation has already been negatived by me on the basis of the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. Thus even the present contention has no force and it is rejected accordingly. Appeal dismissed.