Judgment , J. 1. This is plaintiffs second appeal whose suit for declaration and as a consequential relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed by both the courts below. 2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of land measuring 7 Kanals and 1 Marla situated in village Kheri Gagan, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar. A suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land in view of compromise arrived at in civil suit No.879-C decided on 15.4.1994 and he is entitled to get the revenue record corrected in his favour accordingly. As a consequential relief of permanent injunction, it was prayed that the defendant be restrained from alienating or transferring the land in dispute or causing any type of interference in the possession of the plaintiff. 3. The defendant did not opt to contest the claim of the plaintiff and was proceeded ex parte before the trial court. 4. Trial court on a consideration of evidence produced by the plaintiff found the plea of the plaintiff to be false. Not only this, the suit was also held to be hopelessly barred by time and was consequently dismissed. Appeal preferred by the plaintiff also failed before the first appellate court. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 6. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his plea that the land in dispute came to his share in view of the compromise arrived at in the previous suit decided on 15.4.1994. It was further found as a fact that the suit which was filed on 19.5.2000 was barred by time. The plaintiff had the knowledge of the decree because he was the party to the suit. These findings are based on appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam V/s. Savitri Bai Sapan Gujar and Ors. , the learned Counsel for the appellant was called upon to indicate substantial question of law which arises for determination in this Regular Second Appeal. But the counsel could not point out any. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam V/s. Savitri Bai Sapan Gujar and Ors. , the learned Counsel for the appellant was called upon to indicate substantial question of law which arises for determination in this Regular Second Appeal. But the counsel could not point out any. Even no illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant so as to persuade this Court to interfere with the judgment and decree under appeal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for the consideration of this Court. The appeal is consequently dismissed. .