JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Legal representatives of Amar Dass – defendant (since deceased) have filed this second appeal, having failed in both the courts below. 2. Suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff Chander Bhan against Amar Dass – defendant alleging that land measuring 25 acres was allotted to Khem Chand – father of both the parties, in Multan (now in Pakistan), prior to partition, in view of service rendered by him to the British Government. After partition of the country, land measuring 10 acres situated in two villages was allotted to Khem Chand in lieu of aforesaid land left in Pakistan. However, the allotted land in India was mutated in the name of defendant, who exchanged the same with land described in the plaint. Both defendant and plaintiff being real brothers became owners in possession of the entire land in equal shares. However, the entire land was mutated in the name of defendant alone so that he could get the post of Lambardaar in the village because the land of his share only was insufficient for that post. Subsequently, in December 1973, the suit land was distributed between the parties in family settlement with intervention of relatives and friends because the defendant had become dishonest under the garb of revenue entries in his favour. Accordingly, land measuring 19 kanals 19 marlas described in the plaint, out of land in one village and land measuring 05 kanals, out of land in the second village fell to the share of plaintiff, who became owner in possession of the said total land measuring 24 kanals 19 marlas. The remaining land came to the share of defendant, who became owner thereof. However, to make good the deficiency in the area given to the plaintiff, the defendant assured to transfer more land to the plaintiff. Civil Suit No. 631/1 was filed on 14.12.1973 by plaintiff against the defendant. The defendant appeared in the said suit and filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 02.03.1974. However, mutation in terms thereof has not been entered in the revenue record. The defendant has again become dishonest and threatened to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the land of his share. Accordingly, plaintiff sought declaration and permanent injunction. 3. Defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff and controverted the plaint averments. However, mutation in terms thereof has not been entered in the revenue record. The defendant has again become dishonest and threatened to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the land of his share. Accordingly, plaintiff sought declaration and permanent injunction. 3. Defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff and controverted the plaint averments. It was pleaded that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land. Revenue entries in favour of defendant are correct and legal and valid. 4. Defendant no.1 also made counter-claim to assail judgment and decree dated 02.03.1974 passed in Civil Suit No. 631/1 of 1973 and also to challenge judgment and decree dated 01.04.1976 passed in Civil Suit No.217 of 1976 alleging that the same were obtained by the plaintiff by playing fraud. The plaintiff, by filing written statement, controverted the counter-claim of the defendant. It was pleaded that the defendant himself appeared before the Court to suffer the said decrees. 5. Both the courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff and dismissed the counter-claim of the defendant. Feeling still aggrieved, legal representatives of the defendant have filed the instant appeal. 6. I have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the defendant never appeared to suffer decree dated 02.03.1974 regarding the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and the said decree was obtained by impersonation. The contention cannot be accepted because there is practically no evidence in support of this contention. The defendant himself did not step into the witness-box to support his version in this regard. Consequently, there is no basis whatsoever for this contention. 8. On the other hand, the plaintiff examined Mr. Attar Singh Nehra, Advocate (PW-2) as witness. He stated that he had identified the defendant when he made statement in the suit in which decree dated 02.03.1974 was passed, to admit the claim of the plaintiff in that suit. Said statement of Mr. Attar Singh Nehra, Advocate (PW-2) stands unrebutted and proves that the defendant himself suffered the said decree and was not impersonated. 9. Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that there was no Vakalatnama by defendant in favour of Mr. Said statement of Mr. Attar Singh Nehra, Advocate (PW-2) stands unrebutted and proves that the defendant himself suffered the said decree and was not impersonated. 9. Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that there was no Vakalatnama by defendant in favour of Mr. Attar Singh Nehra, Advocate in the previous suit and he had not been engaged by the defendant in that suit, nor he signed the statement of defendant made in that suit to admit the claim of the plaintiff. Presence of Mr. Nehra is also not recorded in the decree dated 02.03.1974 on behalf of the defendant. These contentions are also completely untenable. Mr. Nehra may not have been engaged as counsel in the said suit by the defendant. However, in judgment dated 02.03.1974, it is specifically mentioned that the defendant, whose statement was recorded, was identified by Mr. Attar Singh Nehra, Advocate. Even if Mr. Nehra had not been engaged as counsel, he could still identify the defendant in the Court when the defendant made statement in that suit. For the same reason, presence of Mr. Nehra as Advocate in the suit may not have been recorded in decree dated 02.03.1974 because he might not have been engaged as counsel, but nevertheless he identified the defendant because he personally knew the defendant. Mr. Nehra, while appearing as witness in the instant lis, has specifically stated that he knew the defendant Amar Dass personally and had identified him when his statement was recorded on 02.03.1974 in the aforesaid previous suit. Mr. Nehra also stated that he identified his signatures on the said statement Ex.PW-2/A. Counsel for the appellants contended that the said statement does not bear signatures of Mr. Nehra regarding identification of the defendant. The contention is again factually incorrect because photostat certified copy of the said statement placed on record does not even purport to bear the signatures of defendant himself, and therefore, it is apparent that in the photostat copy, signatures of defendant and Mr. Nehra do not appear. On the contrary, when Mr. Nehra stated in his examination-in-chief that he identified his signatures on aforesaid statement, it was not suggested to him in his cross-examination that the said statement does not bear his signatures. It is, therefore, very much manifest that the defendant, while making the said statement, was identified by Mr. Nehra do not appear. On the contrary, when Mr. Nehra stated in his examination-in-chief that he identified his signatures on aforesaid statement, it was not suggested to him in his cross-examination that the said statement does not bear his signatures. It is, therefore, very much manifest that the defendant, while making the said statement, was identified by Mr. Nehra, Advocate, and therefore, the question of obtaining the said decree dated 02.03.1974 by impersonation is reasonably ruled out. At the risk of repetition, it is highlighted that there is practically no evidence to depict that the said decree was obtained by impersonation of the defendant. 10. Counsel for the appellants also submitted that application (Annexure P-5) moved by the defendant in the lower appellate court for additional evidence has not been decided by the lower appellate court. However, this contention also does not help the appellants. By the said application, defendant wanted to prove allotment letter of land in favour of defendant along with book of consolidation of holdings. However, it is the case of the plaintiff in the plaint itself that the land was mutated in the name of defendant only on allotment of land to his father. Consequently, the proposed additional evidence would not serve any purpose. Moreover, the matter already stands decided vide judgment and decree dated 02.03.1974. Consequently, the proposed additional evidence would be completely irrelevant. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the suit of the plaintiff has been rightly decreed and counter-claim of defendant has been rightly dismissed by the courts below. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below in this regard does not suffer from any perversity or illegality nor it is shown to be based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. There is no ground to interfere with the said finding. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. The appeal is devoid of substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------