Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. The plaintiffs have remained unsuccessful before the learned first appellate Court. They filed a suit for declaration claiming 3/5th share in the suit property and that the mutation dated February 4,1952 was illegal,bad and not binding upon their rights. A consequential prayer for permanent injunction was also made. 2. The plaintiffs claimed that Kehar Singh, deceased,was owner of the land in dispute. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are sons of kehar singh. Defendants No.2 to 4 are sons of Bhai Singh , deceased son of Kehar singh and defendants No.5 to 8 are the daughters and daughters legal representatives. The plaintiffs further claimed that defendant No.1 was proclaiming that he had got 1/2 share in the land in suit. 3. Consequently, the suit in question was filed by the plaintiffs. The suit was contested by defendant No.1 who denied the allegations contained in the plaint. 4. Learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 took up the matter in appeal before the learned first appellate Court. Learned first appellate Court reappraised the evidence. 5. On the basis of aforesaid reappraisal of the evidence, learned first appellate court came to a categorical finding of fact that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the property in question was ancestral property and that they had 3/5 share in the suit property as claimed by them. Reliance placed by the plaintiffs on various documents was duly noticed but it was held that the aforesaid documents did not advance the case of the plaintiffs in any manner. Since the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the property in the hands of Kehar Singh was ancestral in any manner, therefore, the appeal of the defendants was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. Shri B. S. Bhalla,learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffappellants has vehemently argued that the documentary evidence on the record clearly proved that the land in question was ancestral in the hands of kehar Singh and,therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs was clearly proved. 7. However I find myself unable to agree with the same. The learned first appellate Court had taken into consideration the entire documentary evidence and thereafter had returned the aforesaid findings. 7. However I find myself unable to agree with the same. The learned first appellate Court had taken into consideration the entire documentary evidence and thereafter had returned the aforesaid findings. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate are based upon any misreading of evidence or contrary to the record. Consequently, the findings on fact recorded by the learned first appellate Court are affirmed. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal Dismissed.