JUDGMENT : SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. This regular second appeal stands filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure . Concurrent findings of fact are challenged by the plaintiff. 2. Smt. Asha Devi (plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration against Sh. Prem Singh (defendant No. 1) and her husband Sh. Jagdish Chand (defendant No. 2). On 2.6.2006 defendant No. 2 executed deed of relinquishment with respect to the suit land, in favour of defendant No. 1. Plaintiff challenged the same, seeking declaration to the effect that the said deed of relinquishment is forged, fraudulent and allegedly executed only to defeat her legitimate claim as defendant No. 2 is duty bound to maintain her, being his wife. In response, defendants resisted the suit, inter alia, stating that defendant No. 2 being a retired Government employee was in a position to satisfy the order of maintenance so granted by the Court, in favour of the plaintiff. Maintenance is fixed @ Rs. 2500/- per month. 3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether relinquishment deed dated 02.06.2006 is liable to be cancelled, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estoped from filing the present suit by her own act and conduct, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with special costs, under Section 35-A CPC, as prayed for? OPD 6. Relief. 4. Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in toto in terms of judgment and decree dated 5.10.2012, passed in Civil Suit No. 138 of 2006, RBT No. 75/09, titled as Asha Devi v. Prem Singh & another. 5. Findings of fact, judgment and decree stand affirmed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.6.2013, passed in Civil Appeal No. 115 of 2012, titled as Asha Devi v. Prem Singh & another. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. 7. Significantly, plaintiff could not prove the transaction in question to be of fraudulent in nature. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. 7. Significantly, plaintiff could not prove the transaction in question to be of fraudulent in nature. Defendant no. 2 has since retired. He is drawing pension of Rs. 13,000/- per month. It is not the case of plaintiff, that the order granting maintenance has not been complied with. Plaintiff has failed to establish her right over the suit land. How the deed of relinquishment is fraudulent has not been explained or proved by her. That apart, it has come on record, through the testimony of defendant No. 2 who appeared as DW - 1, that apart from the suit land, he has four - five kanals of another land. Order passed by the Court can be satisfied as the husband is solvent. 8. Consequently, I do not find any reason or ground sufficient enough to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. It cannot be said that the judgments passed by the Courts below are based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of facts and material placed on record by the parties or that the same is perverse which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.