JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - In this defendants second appeal concurrent findings recorded by the courts below have been assailed. 2. Before making any submission on the merits of the appeal the learned counsel referred to three applications by him. The first application was moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code and was directed to be put up at the time of hearing of appeal. The application will be considered at the appropriate place in this judgement. The two other applications relate to addition of grounds in the memorandum of appeal and for permission to argue on some additional points than those formulated as substantial questions, of law at the time of admission of the appeal. After hearing the learned counsel I find no merit in the same. Even if these questions are allowed to be raised these will not affect the merit of the appeal in any manner. 3. Now on the merits of the appeal. The plaintiff respondent claiming to be the owner of House No. 168 filed the suit initially for injunction as the defendants were threatening to dispossess the plaintiff and to alter the structure of two tiled roofed rooms in the disputed house. In January, 1981 while the suit was pending trial an amendment to add the relief of possession was sought as the defendants had allegedly occupied the disputed rooms forcibly. 4. The defence case was that plaintiff was owner of only pucca portion of the house while the two rooms with Khaprail covering had been in defendants possession for the last 45 years and 30 years respectively. They also claimed that the land had been granted to them by the Zamindar in pursuance whereof Khaprail-roofed rooms were constructed by them. In the alternative they also pleaded that plaintiffs husband Mathu had executed a deed of surrender in their favour on 10-2-1974. The defendants also claimed title by adverse possession. 5. On the evidence on record the courts below have recorded concurrent findings in plaintiffs favour. The claim of title by defendants on the basis of surrender deed is contrary to other pleas raised in defense by them. It cuts at the root of the plea that plaintiff was not owner of the disputed rooms because inherent in this plea is admission of Mathus title thereto. The claim of title by defendants on the basis of surrender deed is contrary to other pleas raised in defense by them. It cuts at the root of the plea that plaintiff was not owner of the disputed rooms because inherent in this plea is admission of Mathus title thereto. The surrender deed being unregistered is admissible in evidence but strongly supports plaintiffs title to the property which she had inherited from her husband, Mathu, This deed of surrender also falsifies the defence plea of adverse possession. The plea regarding grant of land by the Zamindar has also been rightly rejected as relevant evidence on the point had not been adduced by the defendants. 6. The courts, however, came to the conclusion that the defendants have been in possession since 1970 as their names were duly entered in the voters list for that year. The appellant has sought permission to file copies of some gazette notifications showing that the voters list had been prepared in 1968 to prove appellants possession from before 1968. Be that as it may, the suit having been brought in 1970 the same was well within time and the appellants cannot get benefit at all even if these documents are taken on record. Besides this no such ground was taken by the appellants when the appeal was filed in the court below. It will not be just and proper therefore, to permit them to raise these questions in second appeal. The application under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. is rejected also for the reason that the appellants have failed to make out any ground for the admission of additional evidence here in second appeal. 7. On going through the record and Judgement of the courts below I find that the Judgement under appeal is based on a proper appreciation of evidence and no substantial question of law has also been raised which is concluded by findings of fact. In any case no interference in appeal is called for. 8. In the end learned counsel for The respondents pointed out that a sum of Rs. 2,500/- was got deposited as a condition for stay of execution. In view of dismissal of the appeal this sum should now be made available to the plaintiff respondent. On 6-5-1983 the appellant was directed to furnish security in a sum of Rs. 8. In the end learned counsel for The respondents pointed out that a sum of Rs. 2,500/- was got deposited as a condition for stay of execution. In view of dismissal of the appeal this sum should now be made available to the plaintiff respondent. On 6-5-1983 the appellant was directed to furnish security in a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as a condition for staying dispossession of the appellant. This amount shall now be payable to the plaintiff - respondent on a proper application being made to the trial court in that behalf. 9. In the result the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.