JUDGMENT JASBIR SINGH, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against judgments and decrees dated October 12, 1977, and February 21, 1980, vide which suit and appeal respectively filed by the appellant were dismissed. 2. Records reveal that the appellant filed a suit to the effect that she be declared as owner in possession of share in agricultural land measuring 199 Kanals 2 MarIas in village Kabarchha and share in agricultural land measuring 68 Kanals 17 MarIas, situated in village Karsindhu, further description of which was given by her in her plaint. She further prayed that mutation of inheritance sanctioned in favour of the respondent to the extent of 1/2 share be set aside. Her suit was dismissed. She also failed in appeal. 3. Records reveal that land in dispute originally belonged to Shri Jhandu (deceased), father of the appellant. After his death, land was mutated in the name of appellant and respondent in equal shares showing them as daughter and widow respectively of the deceased. In her plaint, it was case of the appellant that the respondent was not widow of the deceased and she being the sole heir was entitled to inherit entire property, left by the deceased Jhandu. 4. In her written-statement, the respondent claimed that she was the widow of the deceased. This fact was accepted to be correct by the appellant and thereafter mutation was rightly sanctioned to the extent of share each, in the name of the appellant and the respondent. It was further averred that the fact, that the respondent was a widow of Jhandu was even accepted by the appellant in proceedings for getting a succession certificate, regarding money left by the deceased. 5. Shri Bhoop Singh, Advocate, for the appellant, by referring to document Ex. A1 (statement made by the respondent in proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C.) vehemently contended that as the respondent, in her statement, has admitted that before her marriage with the deceased, she was married and her previous husband was alive, her marriage with Jhandu was void and accordingly, she cannot be held entitled to inherit the property in dispute. He prayed that both the Courts below have wrongly ignored the document, referred to above, and as such judgments and decrees passed deserve to be set aside. He prayed that both the Courts below have wrongly ignored the document, referred to above, and as such judgments and decrees passed deserve to be set aside. Counsel further argued that the Courts below have placed reliance upon some documents, wherein the appellant had admitted the respondent, as widow of the deceased, in ignorance of her legal rights and as such reliance upon those documents was not justified. 6. Shri Hawa Singh Hooda, Senior Advocate for the respondent, by referring to document Exs. RI, RW4/A and RW5/B, argued that the appellant, in above mentioned documents has admitted the respondent as widow of the deceased. Shri Hooda further contended that no such plea that the marriage of the deceased with the respondent was not valid, was taken in the plaint and as such at this stage, no benefit of any argument in that regard can be extended to the appellant. He prayed that as in appeal, no substantial question of law has been raised, the same be dismissed. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the counsel for the appellant has failed to make out any substantial question of law, which may necessitate any interference in pure findings of facts. It is apparent from the records that immediately after the death of Shri Jhandu, mutation was sanctioned in favour of the appellant and the respondent. So far as statement Ex. AI, made by the respondent is concerned, the same has rightly been discarded by the Courts below, as the said, statement was made by the respondent against her own interest and in proceedings, in which appellant was not a party. Furthermore, view of admissions made by the respondent, which are categoric and clear in various documents, any statement made by the respondent, has lost its significance. Furthermore, in her plaint, the appellant has not averred that the respondent was earlier married and her husband was alive. It was positive case of the appellant that Jia Lal etc. had played a fraud upon her and by getting her signatures on some documents had shown the respondent as widow of the deceased and have grabed her (appellants) property. During trial, appellant has failed to prove any fraud played upon her. Rather, it has come on record that she had made admission in documents Exs. had played a fraud upon her and by getting her signatures on some documents had shown the respondent as widow of the deceased and have grabed her (appellants) property. During trial, appellant has failed to prove any fraud played upon her. Rather, it has come on record that she had made admission in documents Exs. Rl, RW4/A and RW5/B stating that the respondent was widow of deceased Shri Jhandu. Perusal of records indicate that in the month of September, 1975, the appellant had made an application Ex. Rl for partition of the joint Khewat, wherein she had shown the respondent as wife of the deceased and admitted her as a co-sharer. Similarly, in her application Ex. PW5/A to get a succession certificate, regarding some amount of money left by the deceased in a Bank, she had stated that the respondent was the widow of Jhandu and had shown her as her mother. Appellant also in her affidavit Ex. PW 4/ A, annexed with the application, referred to above, has admitted the respondent as her mother. Same is the situation in the power of attorney, attached in that case. Not only this, the respondent was shown as widow of the deceased Jhandu in pedigreetable, which was put on record by the parties at the time of sanctioning of mutation regarding land in dispute. Filing of the present suit is an afterthought and as such it cannot be said that the appellant had made any statement 1 admission in ignorance to her legal rights. 8. In view of the facts of the case, as referred to above, no benefit of the ratio of judgment in Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 376, can be extended to the appellant. 9. Dismissed.