Judgment 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. Plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court who have lost concurrently before the two Courts below. They filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction on May 18, 1992 claiming that they are joint owners in possession of land measuring 95 kanal 12 marlas being 6/7th shares of the total land and that, defendant No.1 is the joint owner in possession of 15 kanal 10 marlas being 1/7th share of the total. It was claimed that defendant No.1 could not deny the title of the plaintiffs in the suit land. In the alternative, the plaintiffs claimed joint possession of the total land. 2. The plaintiffs alleged that they had inherited the suit land from Kishan Singh. At no point of time, the plaintiff had ever sold any land out of Khasra No.1504 but revenue record reflected some sales. The plaintiffs claimed that the said entries in the revenue record were illegal, bad and not binding upon their rights. The plaintiffs further claimed that predecessor of defendant Nos.12 to 18 and defendant No.1 had sold more than their share in the joint holding and the said sales were liable to be set aside. It was pleaded that father of the plaintiffs namely Gurditta Ram and his wife were illiterate and defendant No.1, Gurdas Ram, used to manage the affairs of Gurditta Ram. Consequently, he managed the revenue entries in his favour. It was further claimed that Gurditta Ram had mortgaged some land but later on had redeemed the same. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendant no.1 filed written statement claiming that he was owner of the property in question. All the pleas taken by the plaintiffs were denied. A separate written statement was filed by defendant Nos.2 to 6 and defendant nos.8 to 10. The aforesaid defendants also pleaded that the plaintiffs had no concern with the suit land and that, the sale deeds in their favour were legal and valid. 4. On the appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had never inherited any property from Kishan Singh. It was also held that the sale deed, Ex. D-2, was more than 30 years old and sale deed, Ex. D-8, was executed on January 8, 1954. Mutations, Ex. 4. On the appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had never inherited any property from Kishan Singh. It was also held that the sale deed, Ex. D-2, was more than 30 years old and sale deed, Ex. D-8, was executed on January 8, 1954. Mutations, Ex. D-6 and Ex. D-7 had been entered on December 17, 1916 and May 26, 1916 and as such, were also legal and valid and even the suit of the plaintiffs filed on May 18, 1992 challenging the sale deeds and the mutations was hopelessly barred by limitation. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 5. On appeal filed by the plaintiffs, identical findings were recorded by the learned first Appellate Court as well. The appeal of the plaintiffs was also dismissed. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the court below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.