Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. This is plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner of the land measuring 17 Kanals 32 Marias situated in village Khem Karan, Tehsit Patti, District Amritsar. 2. The plaintiff claimed that the suit land was allotted to him in lieu of Khasra Nos. after the consolidation of holdings in the year 1948, but the defendants in collusion with the revenue officials alleged themselves as vendees of the suit iand and got an entry recorded in the revenue papers which was wrong and incorrect. The plaintiff denied having sold the suit land to the defendants. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. It was stated that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. The defendants raised a preliminary objection that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as one Prem Lal Singh also, along with the plaintiff had sold the suit land to the defendants vide registered sale deed dated 15.1.1964 but the said Prem Lal Singh had not been made a party to the suit. It was also stated that the defendants purchased the suit land from the plaintiff and his brother Prem Lal Singh vide sale deed dated 15.1.1964 and since then they were in possession of the suit land. The defendants also pleaded that they had become owners of the suit land by adverse possession. 4. In support of his claim, the plaintiff himself appeared as PW1 and tendered in evidence a copy of jamabandi for the year 1970-71, Exhibit P-1; another copy of jamabandi for the year 1964-75 Exhibit P2; copy mutation No. 2932 Exhibit P3; copy of Khasra Girdawri from 1965 to 1970 Exhibit P-4; copy of order of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Patti, Exhibit P5; copy of Naqsha Hakarwar Exhibit P6; Field Books Exhibits P7, P10 and P11 and also copies of jamabandis Exhibits P8 and P9 pertaining to the years 1975-76 apart from other documents. On the other hand, the defendant Kabal Singh himself appeared as DW2. The defendants also examined one Arjan Singh as DW1, apart from tendering certain revenue documents in their evidence. 5. On the other hand, the defendant Kabal Singh himself appeared as DW2. The defendants also examined one Arjan Singh as DW1, apart from tendering certain revenue documents in their evidence. 5. Both the courts below dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove on record as to how he became owner in possession of the suit land, which according to him was allotted to him in lieu of his earlier land and the plaintiff had himself admitted in his cross-examination that he had sold the suit land to the defendants. The courts below further held that a simplicitor suit for declaration without there being any right of the plaintiff was not maintainable. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the re cord of the case, and find that no substantial question of law arises for determination in second appeal. A perusal of jamabandi for the year 1964-65 Exhibit P2 and mutation Exhibit P3 shows that the land in dispute was allotted to the plaintiff by the consolidation authorities in lieu of his land which he owned prior to the consolidation of holdings and the suit land had been sold to the defendants vide registered sale deed and the mutation in respect of which was sanctioned on 5.2.1968. Since the defendants have been proved to be the purchasers of the suit land vide registered sale deed, by both the courts below, there is no illegality in the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below so as to warrant interference by this court in second appeal. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is consequently dismissed. There will no order as to costs.