Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. The plaintiff has lost before the learned first Appellate Court and has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal. She filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession of the land measuring 36 kanals 7 marlas and that the judgment and decree dated March 26, 1985 shown to have been suffered by her in favour of the defendants was illegal, bad, as a result of fraud and not binding upon her rights. 2. The plaintiff claimed that defendants are the sons of the real brother of the husband of the plaintiff. On the asking of the defendants, the plaintiff went along with them for getting the mutation of land in her name. However, the defendants obtained the said decree by practising fraud upon her and by obtaining her signatures on blank papers. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. They claimed that the decree in question was legal and validly suffered by the plaintiff in their favour, as a result of family settlement. A plea of limitation was also taken by the defendants. 4. The learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendants. The learned first appellate Court reappraised the evidence and came to the conclusion that the decree dated March 26, 1983 had been passed by the Court on a consent written statement filed by the plaintiff in the earlier suit. The lawyer who had represented the plaintiff had appeared and had stated that the written statement had been prepared on the asking of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, it was held that neither any fraud was played upon her nor any misrepresentation had been made. The decree dated september 30,1985 had been suffered on account of the consent written statement filed by the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff again made a statement ex. DW3/d in another litigation wherein she again admitted that she had suffered a decree dated September 30, 1985 voluntarily. In this view of the matter the decree in question was upheld. The appeal filed by the defendants was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Subsequently, the plaintiff again made a statement ex. DW3/d in another litigation wherein she again admitted that she had suffered a decree dated September 30, 1985 voluntarily. In this view of the matter the decree in question was upheld. The appeal filed by the defendants was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Besides the fact that firm findings of fact have been recorded by the learned first Appellate Court rejecting the claim of the plaintiff, it is also apparent that the decree dated March 3, 1985 had been challenged by the plaintiff by filing the Civil Suit on May 28,1990. The aforesaid other suit was obviously barred by limitation. 5. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal Dismissed.