Judgment L.N.Mittal, J. 1. This is second appeal by Jai Lal plaintiff who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below. 2. The plaintiff alleging that the suit land has been in possession of the plaintiff (including his predecessors-in-interest) for more than 50 years, filed suit seeking declaration that the plaintiff acquired occupancy rights over the suit land and therefore, has become owner thereof. The plaintiff also challenged report No. 47 dated 8.11.1988 recorded in daily diary of Patwari regarding relinquishment of the possession of the suit land by the plaintiff in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 who there after exchanged the suit land with other land of defendant No. 5. 3. Defendant No. 5 contested and resisted the suit and pleaded that defendant No. 5 is in possession of the suit property since the time of exchange. Various pleas raised by the plaintiff were controverted. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the courts below have relied on relinquishment deed dated 9.8.1988 which was not even pleaded by respondent No. 5. The contention has been rebutted by counsel for respondent No. 5 contending that the said document is referred to in report No. 47 in the daily diary of the Patwari which has been challenged in the suit by the plaintiff. 6. I have carefully considered the contention. Admittedly, there is reference to a document dated 9.8.1988 in the report No. 47 of the Patwari although nature of the document is not legible in the said document. The relinquishment deed is a registered document and the said deed is dated 9.8.1988. Consequently, it cannot be said that the courts below have wrongly placed reliance on the said document. 7. The plaintiff had earlier filed civil suit in the year 1986 alleging his possession to be for more than 20 years over the suit land as tenant on payment of Rs. 20/- per annum as -chakota-. In the present suit, which has been filed about 11 years thereafter, the plaintiff has claimed his possession for more than 50 years. It would depict that even in the year 1986 when the plaintiff had filed his earlier suit, possession of the plaintiff as per his version in the instant case was more than 40 years at the time of filing of the previous suit. It would depict that even in the year 1986 when the plaintiff had filed his earlier suit, possession of the plaintiff as per his version in the instant case was more than 40 years at the time of filing of the previous suit. However, in that suit the plaintiff did not claim occupancy rights and consequential ownership over the suit land. This circumstance would go strongly against the claim of the plaintiff in the instant suit. 8. In addition to the aforesaid, both the courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff is no longer in possession of the suit land since 9.8.1988 when he had relinquished possession thereof in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The said finding of fact cannot be said to be perverse so as to raise a substantial question of law for determination in the instant second appeal. On the other hand, the said finding of fact is based on appreciation of evidence. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I find that no sub-stantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. accordingly dismissed.