ORAL ORDER 1. Heard on admission. 2. The appellants/defendants are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18-07-2001 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar in Civil Appeal No.16-A/2001 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30-11-1999 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Baloda Bazar in Civil Suit No.535-A/1995 whereby the respondents/plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and also for possession of the suit land was decreed in their favour. 3. It is not in dispute that Sonsai and Dhansai were brothers. Sunderbai was the daughter of Sonsai and Maanki. Respondent/plaintiff Ram kumar is the son of Sunderbai. 4. The claim of the appellants/defendants is founded on the pleading that after the death of Maanki, Sonsai had married Jamwati through a Churi form of marriage and a settlement deed was executed by Jamwati Bai on the basis of which on 9-10-1983 vide EX.D- 3, the land was mutated in tl1eir names. This settlement deed though in existence was not produced by the appellants/defendants before the Courts below. The next is an admission made by Mangtu Ram (PW -2) husband of Sunderbai in paragraph 3 that Jamwati Bai was the churied wife of Sonsai. It was urged on the above premises that both the Courts below have erred in recording a finding that Jamwati Bai was not the churied wife of Sonsai and therefore, could not settle the suit land in favour of the appellants/defendants. 5. Having heard the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, I have perused the record with utmost circumspection. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants while being unable to show any law under which the land could be settled by Jamwati Bai in favour of the appellants/defendants contended that this question of law was not raised before both the Courts below. No explanation was forthcoming for non-production of the settlement deed on which the mutation of the appellants/defendants' name was founded. Evidence was led to show that Jamwati had married one Bullu and had two daughters from him. There is no reliable evidence to show whether Jamwati had married Sonsai through a Churi Marriage after the death of Bullu or during the subsistence of her marriage with Bullu. The testimony of Mangtu (PW -2) is silent on this point. Evidence was led to show that Jamwati had married one Bullu and had two daughters from him. There is no reliable evidence to show whether Jamwati had married Sonsai through a Churi Marriage after the death of Bullu or during the subsistence of her marriage with Bullu. The testimony of Mangtu (PW -2) is silent on this point. In my considered opinion both the Courts below have on a proper appreciation of evidence oral as well as documentary recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellants/defendants have failed to es1ablish that Jamwati Bai was the churned wife of Sonsai and could settle the suit land in favour of the appellants/defendants. I am of the considered opinion, that no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed at the s1age of admission. Appeal Dismissed.