ORDER 1. The instant second appeal is directed against the concurrent judgment and decree dated 23/7/2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.15-A/2011 by Additional District Judge, Singrauli affirming the judgment and decree dated 19/4/2011 passed in Civil Suit No.24-A/2007 whereby the suit filed under sections 34 and 38 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking declaration of title and declaration of sale deed dated 31/7/2007 executed in favour of defendants 1 and 2 by late Bachchu Lohar be declared as null and void, has been dismissed. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this second appeal are that admittedly the suit land was owned by original-defendant No.3-Bachchu Lohar who died later on. A sale deed dated 31/7/2007 has been executed by late Bachchu Lohar in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and after execution of sale deed Bachchu Lohar had died. 3. Plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 are the daughters of Bachchu Lohar. 4. The plaintiff has assailed the aforesaid sale deed on the ground that her late father Bachchu Lahor had suffered paralytic attack in the year 2007. He was not in good mental and physical condition but defendants 3 and 4 under the pretext of providing treatment to late Bachchu Lahor, their father, had taken him from village to Sidhi and after obtaining his thumb impression on the sale deed dated 31/7/2007 fraudulently, executed the same and, therefore, the sale deed is a forged document prepared fraudulently. Further relief claimed that she be declared 1/4th share in the suit property being daughter of Bachchu Lohar. 5. Defendants 1 and 2 and defendants 4 and 5 have denied the plaint allegations and asserted that the suit property was the self-acquired property of late Bachchu Lohar who was in possession over the suit property up to 31st July, 2007. On 31/07/2007 voluntarily he executed sale deed in favour of defendants 1 and 2 on receipt of consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. He was in good mental and physical health condition. The suit has been filed on fabricated facts only to deprive defendants 1 and 2 from the property which has been sold to them bona fidely and put to possession. 6. Trial Court, upon pleadings of the parties, framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. He was in good mental and physical health condition. The suit has been filed on fabricated facts only to deprive defendants 1 and 2 from the property which has been sold to them bona fidely and put to possession. 6. Trial Court, upon pleadings of the parties, framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. The trial Court, upon detailed and thread bare discussion on pleadings and evidence on record, recorded the finding that the sale deed dated 31/7/2007 executed by late Bachchu Lohar in favour of defendants 1 and 2 was bona fidely executed. The amount of consideration of sale deed of Rs.two lacs was received by him prior to execution of sale deed and he was in good mental and physical condition. 7. Being aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff/appellant preferred first appeal. The pivotal issue involved before the first appellate Court was to examine as to whether the sale deed dated 31/7/2007 was executed by Bachchu Lohar in favour of defendants 1 and 2 in good mental and physical health condition and in full consciousness as well as upon receipt of full consideration amount of Rs.two lacs. 8. The first appellate Court has, again, discussed the evidence brought on record by both the parties. In paragraphs-14, 15 and 16 first appellate Court has discussed the evidence of Dashodiya (PW 1) and has found that it is admitted fact that the sale deed was executed on 31/7/2007. Consideration of Rs.two lacs was received. No document was produced to prove the allegation that her father suffered paralytic attack, besides there is no evidence on record that Bachchu Lohar had lost his mental balance and strength for understanding and reasonings. On the fact that Bachchu Lohar had himself appeared before the Court on 18/2/2008 and filed written statement, the first appellate Court has rightly found that under such circumstances, the said person cannot be said to be lacking in mental and physical fitness. The first appellate Court also discussed the evidence of defendants' witnesses Aditya Prasad (DW 1) and Sonua (DW 2) to prove the fact that before execution of sale deed dated 31/7/2007, amount of consideration of Rs.two lacs had been received by late Bachchu Lohar who had sold the suit property for his own need. The evidence has also come on record that the amount of consideration was handed over and the sale deed was executed in front of Registrar. The evidence has also come on record that the amount of consideration was handed over and the sale deed was executed in front of Registrar. 9. As such, upon due evaluation of the evidence on record, both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the sale deed dated 31/7/2007 was validly executed. 10. In view of forgoing facts and circumstances, the entire matter has concurrently been concluded by the two Courts below and is in realm of facts. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. As such, no interference under section 100 of CPC is warranted. 11. The second appeal sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.