Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved against concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby his suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed, plaintiff has approached this Court by way of this regular second appeal. Facts first. Briefly put, facts of the case, as recorded in the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate court, are that the agricultural land measuring 32 kanals 13 marlas was situated in village Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla vide Jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 (hereinafter being referred as the suit land). One Santokh Singh son of Kura Singh son of Dinda resident of Cheeka, tehsil Guhla, was the owner in possession of the suit land. Said Santokh Singh was the real brother of plaintiff and defendant No. 2 Dever (brother-in-law) of defendant No. 3 and real uncle of defendants No. 4 and 5. Santokh Singh was unmarried and had been living with the plaintiff and was being looked after and served by the plaintiff. Santokh Singh had expired on 26.04.2001 leaving behind his mother Smt. Bani Devi as his only legal heirs. Smt. Bani Devi had also expired on 03.03.2002 leaving behind the plaintiff and per-forma defendants No. 2 to 5 as her only legal heirs, being her sons, grand son and grand daughter. As such, after the death of Santokh Singh and Smt. Bani Devi, the plaintiff and performa defendant No. 2 were the owners in possession of 2/3rd share in equal shares and defendants No. 3 to 5 were the owners in possession in equal shares of 1/3 share of the suit land. There was no other legal heir of deceased Santokh Singh and Smt. Bani Devi, except the plaintiff and performa defendant. 2. Defendant No. 1 was actually Ranjeet Kaur wife of Hari Singh son of Ishar Singh resident of Dudian, Tehsil Munak, Distt. Sangrur but she was falsely claiming herself to be Maya Devi widow of Santokh Singh resident of Cheeka and daughter of Bhagwana @ Bhana resident of Bhana, Tehsil and District Kaithal. On the basis of her said false claim, the defendant No. 1 had applied for entering mutation in respect of the suit land in her favour as well as in favour of Smt. Bani Devi, before the revenue authorities. Mutation No. 8642 was entered, which was contested by the plaintiff before Asstt. Collector Ist Grade, Guhla but Asstt. On the basis of her said false claim, the defendant No. 1 had applied for entering mutation in respect of the suit land in her favour as well as in favour of Smt. Bani Devi, before the revenue authorities. Mutation No. 8642 was entered, which was contested by the plaintiff before Asstt. Collector Ist Grade, Guhla but Asstt. Collector Ist Grade, Guhla had ordered to sanction the mutation in favour of defendant No. 1 and Smt. Bani Devi mother of Santokh Singh, vide order dated 10.7.2006. Impugned order dated 10.7.2006 passed by Asstt. Collector Ist Grade, Guhla vide which mutation No. 8643 had been ordered to be sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 1 and Smt. Bani Devi was totally illegal, null and void, nonest, arbitrary, against law and facts and mutation was liable to be sanctioned in favour of plaintiff and performa defendants. 3. The impugned order dated 10.07.2006 was liable to be set aside on the grounds that Shri Santokh Singh (now deceased) son of Kura Singh died unmarried and he never married with alleged Maya Devi daughter of Bhagwana @ Bhana nor any female child was ever born from the wedlock of Santokh Singh and alleged Maya Singh nor died. Santokh Singh had been living with the plaintiff till his death and was being looked after and served by plaintiff. Smt. Bani Devi, mother of deceased Santokh Singh also expired on 3.3.2002 leaving behind the plaintiff and performa defendants. Previously during her life time, Bani Devi was entitled to inherit the suit land and after her death, the plaintiff and performa defendants were entitled to inherit the suit land being the only legal heirs of Smt. Bani Devi and Santokh Singh. The Court of Collector Ist Grade, Guhla had erred in sanctioning the mutation No. 8643 in favour of defendant No. 1 and Smt. Bani Devi, illegally and unlawfully. No mutation can be sanctioned in favour of a dead person as Smt. Bani Devi had already expired on 3.3.2002 leaving behind the plaintiff and performa defendants as her only legal heirs. The defendant No. 1 was falsely claiming herself as Maya Devi. Asstt. No mutation can be sanctioned in favour of a dead person as Smt. Bani Devi had already expired on 3.3.2002 leaving behind the plaintiff and performa defendants as her only legal heirs. The defendant No. 1 was falsely claiming herself as Maya Devi. Asstt. Collector Ist Grade, Guhla had wrongly held that objector (plaintiff) has not produced any proof on file in support of his claim and wrongly ordered to sanction the mutation No. 8643 in favour of defendant No. 1 and also in favour of a dead person Smt. Bani Devi. 4. The impugned order dated 10.7.2006 passed by Asstt. Collector Ist Grade, Guhla was casting clouds over the rights of the plaintiff and performa defendants No. 2 to 5, as defendant No. 1 was now threatening to dispossess the plaintiff and performa defendants No. 2 to 5 from the suit land, forcibly and illegally and also to alienate the suit land or to create a heavy charge on the suit land, illegally and forcibly on the basis of impugned mutation No. 8643. In case the defendant No. 1 succeed in her illegal mission, the plaintiff and performa defendants No. 2 to 5 shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury. 5. A decree for declaration to the effect that impugned order dated 10.7.2006 passed by Asstt. In case the defendant No. 1 succeed in her illegal mission, the plaintiff and performa defendants No. 2 to 5 shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury. 5. A decree for declaration to the effect that impugned order dated 10.7.2006 passed by Asstt. Collector Ist Grade, Guhla in case No. 07 dated 26.10.2004 vide which mutation No. 8643 has been ordered to be sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 1 and deceased Bani Devi mother of Santokh Singh deceased in respect of the suit land was totally illegal, null and void, nonest, arbitrary, against law and facts and was liable to be set aside as defendant No. 1 was not in any manner related to Santokh Singh deceased son of Kura Singh resident of Cheeka and was not the widow of Santokh Singh deceased and has no right to succeed inherit the suit land and Smt. Bani Devi has now expired and plaintiff and performa defendants No. 2 to 5 were the only successors/legal heirs of deceased Santokh Singh son of Kura Singh resident of Cheeka and were entitled to inherit the suit land and accordingly the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 were the owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of 2/3rd share in equal share and performa defendants No. 3 to 5 were the owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/3rd share in equal shares and mutation No. 8643 was liable to be sanctioned in favour of plaintiff and performa defendants No. 2 to 4 as per their respective shares with the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 for ever from alienating the suit land forcibly and illegally by way of sale, lease, mortgage, release or gift deed etc. and from creating any charge/encumbrance on the suit land from any bank or Govt. financial institution or private person etc. and from dispossessing the plaintiff and performa defendants No. 2 to 5 from the suit land forcibly and illegally, now or in future be passed with costs in favour of plaintiff and performa defendants No. 2 to 5 and against the defendant No. 1. Any other relief to which the plaintiff was found entitled to may also be granted to him. 6. Upon notice, the defendants No. 1 to 3 appeared. The defendant No. 1 filed her written statement. Any other relief to which the plaintiff was found entitled to may also be granted to him. 6. Upon notice, the defendants No. 1 to 3 appeared. The defendant No. 1 filed her written statement. However, no written statement was filed by defendants No. 2 and 3. 7. In her written statement, defendant No. 1 took preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, limitation, estoppal and proper valuation. It was alleged that the simplicitor suit for declaration was not maintainable. Defendant No. 1 was the owner in possession of the suit land. The relief of possession had not been claimed by the plaintiff etc. 8. While replying on merits, it was alleged that the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 5 have no concern with the said Santokh Singh and with the estate of said Santokh Singh. The alleged relations with Santokh Singh of plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 5 were not admitted and were denied and disputed. Santokh Singh was not unmarried nor had been living with the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 was the legally wedded-wife of Santokh Singh, who was married with Santokh Singh about 45 years ago. The other sister of defendant No. 1 Khajani was also married with the plaintiff on the same day. Maya Devi and Santokh Singh lived together as husband and wife for about 15 years, during which a female child had been born to said Santokh Singh and Maya Devi but unfortunately she had expired just after taking the birth. After about 15 years of the marriage Santokh Singh deserted the defendant No. 1 and refused to keep her with him as his wife and since then Maya Devi had been residing at her parental house at village Bhana. About 2 = years ago, the mother of Maya Devi had also expired. The estate of Santokh Singh had devolved in Maya Devi defendant No. 1 and Smt. Bhani Devi mother of Santokh Singh including the suit land in equal shares by way of succession, on the death of Santokh Singh. It was wrong and denied that the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 5 were the legal heirs of said Smt. Bhani Devi as alleged. It was wrong and denied that the plaintiff and performa defendants No. 2 to 5 were the owner in possession of 1/3rd share in equal shares. All the allegations are wrong and denied. It was wrong and denied that the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 5 were the legal heirs of said Smt. Bhani Devi as alleged. It was wrong and denied that the plaintiff and performa defendants No. 2 to 5 were the owner in possession of 1/3rd share in equal shares. All the allegations are wrong and denied. It was answering defendant who was owner in possession of the suit land being the widow of Santokh Singh. 9. The defendant No. 1 was not Ranjeet Kaur wife of Hari Singh son of Ishwar Singh resident of village Dudian tehsil Munak, Distt. Sangrur as alleged. The plaintiff and the remaining defendants No. 2 to 5 were falsely claiming the defendant No. 1 to be Ranjeet Kaur, who was Maya Devi widow of Santokh Singh resident of Cheeka and was the daughter of Bhagwana @ Bhana resident of village Bhana, tehsil and Distt. Kaithal. The plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 5 had become dishonest and want to grab the property of Santokh Singh by avoiding the defendant No. 1 alleging to be Ranjeet Kaur. The mutation No. 8643 had rightly been sanctioned in her name and Smt. Bhani Devi in terms of the order dated Moman Ram v. Ranjeet Kaur and others dated 10.7.2006 passed by the learned ACIG, Guhla. The plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 5 had no authority to challenge the order dated 10.7.2006 and the mutation No. 8643. The impugned order was not liable to be set aside as alleged. The orders dated 10.7.2006 passed by learned A.C.I.G. Guhla was valid order, passed by the competent authority under the law. The said order stands final as no appeal as provided by the law had been filed by the plaintiff etc. The civil court has got no jurisdiction to look into the impugned order, under the law. The succession never remains in abeyance and the property of Santokh Singh stands inherited just on the death of Santokh Singh. The plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 5 had no right, title or interest in the suit land. The plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 5 had never been nor were in possession of the suit land which was in the hands of answering defendant No. 1 by succession: There was no question of dispossessing the plaintiff etc., when they have no concern with the suit land and its possession. The plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 5 had never been nor were in possession of the suit land which was in the hands of answering defendant No. 1 by succession: There was no question of dispossessing the plaintiff etc., when they have no concern with the suit land and its possession. The suit of the plaintiff was false and frivolous to the knowledge of the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 5 and the same merits to be dismissed with costs. 10. On completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues:-- "1. Whether the plaintiff and performa defendants are owner in possession of 2/3rd share in equal share and defendants No. 3 to 5 are in equal in possession of 1/3rd share of the suit land mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the impugned order dated 10.7.2006 passed by Asstt. Collector Ist Grade, Guhla vide which mutation No. 8643 has been ordered to be sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 1 and Smt. Bano Devi is illegal, null and void, nonest, arbitrary, against the law and facts and mutation No. 8643 is liable to be sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff and performa defendants and impugned order dated 10.7.2006 is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued? OPD 8. Relief." In order to prove their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, learned trial court came to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove his case. Consequently, suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14.12.2010. Dis-satisfied, plaintiff filed his first appeal which also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.12.2013. Hence, this second appeal. 11. Consequently, suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14.12.2010. Dis-satisfied, plaintiff filed his first appeal which also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.12.2013. Hence, this second appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that plaintiff-appellant has duly proved his case. He produced cogent and convincing evidence which was sufficient to decree the suit. However, since the learned courts below failed to appreciate the true facts of the case and also the evidence available on record, impugned judgments and decrees were not sustainable in law. Order dated 10.7.2006 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Gulha sanctioning the mutation No. 8643 was a patently illegal order which was liable to be set aside. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees by allowing the present appeal. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC for short). To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. 13. It is a matter of record that defendant No. 1-Maya Devi moved an application for mutation of inheritance of Santokh Singh before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade Gulha in "Jalsa Sare-Aam" i.e. open public meeting. However, since the mutation was contested by the plaintiff and Assistant Collector, IInd Grade was no more competent to decide the contested mutation, matter was referred to Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Gulha. After going through the relevant evidence, Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Gulha, came to the conclusion that Maya Devi was widow of Santokh Singh. Accordingly, mutation No. 8643 was sanctioned vide order dated 10.7.2006. Although order dated 10.7.2006 ought to have been challenged by the plaintiff before the Collector under the relevant provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act, he did not do so for the reasons best known to him. The learned trial Court was not sitting in appeal on the order dated 10.7.2006. In fact, the suit would not be maintainable in the present form. The learned trial Court was not sitting in appeal on the order dated 10.7.2006. In fact, the suit would not be maintainable in the present form. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned courts below committed no error of law, while passing their respective impugned judgments and decrees because of which the same deserve to be upheld. 14. Before arriving at a judicious conclusion, the learned first appellate court rightly re-appreciated the true facts of the case as well as the evidence available on record, so as to record his own cogent findings, in para 15 to 19 of the impugned judgment. Relevant findings recorded in paras 18 and 19 of the impugned judgment read as under:-- "... The appellant plaintiff is alleging that the defendant No. 1 is not the widow of his brother Santokh Singh, therefore, the mutation of the land in her favour is wrong, illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside. It is being alleged that the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 is Ranjeet Kaur wife of Hari Singh. On the other hand, the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 has denied this fact. Both the parties have adduced their respective evidence. As far as the oral evidence is concerned, the plaintiff/appellant alleged that Santokh Singh was never married while the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 alleged that she is Maya Devi and she was married with Santokh Singh. It is further alleged that on the day when she was married with Santokh Singh, on the same day her sister was married with the plaintiff appellant. The witnesses of the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 i.e. D.W.-3 Kalia and D.W.-5 Raghbir also deposed on the same lines. In addition to oral evidence, the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 has placed on record the copy of the voter list for the year 1981 Ex. D.W. 4/A in which she has been well described as wife of Santokh Singh. Similarly she produced voter list prepared for the year of 1983 Ex. D.W. 4/B, in which she has been again described as wife of Santokh Singh. These voter lists are well proved from the statement of D.W.-4. D.W. 4/A in which she has been well described as wife of Santokh Singh. Similarly she produced voter list prepared for the year of 1983 Ex. D.W. 4/B, in which she has been again described as wife of Santokh Singh. These voter lists are well proved from the statement of D.W.-4. These documents can be well relied upon as voter lists are supported by other oral evidence also, therefore, case law laid down by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as Joginder Kaur v. Kanwalpreet Kaur, 2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 452 is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present matter. The document Mark-X could not be properly proved and exhibited in the evidence, therefore, it can not be relied upon. Moreover, no date is mentioned on Mark- X. PW-4 who has produced the document has admitted in his cross-examination that Sr. No. 1 to 3 have not been signed by the officers of the department. No receipt of the document is available on the record. On this ground also, this document can not be safe and relied upon. Therefore, the law laid down by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as Chandi Ram v. Reshma Devi and others, 2010(3) The Punjab Law Reporter 510 is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present matter. The voter list Ex. P5 and Ex. P6 as produced by the plaintiff/appellant can not be safely relied upon as these documents have been prepared during the pendency of the suit i.e. on 22.09.2009/23.09.2009 and 25.11.2009, 02.12.2009 respectively, while the voter list produced by the defendant No. 1 respondents No. 1 pertains to the lime before the institution of the suit, therefore, those are more authentic. In this way, from the evidence oral as well as documentary, it is made out that Maya Devi is the wife of Santokh Singh. Therefore, mutation was rightly sanctioned in her favour. The order objection of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the said Maya Devi is not Maya Devi rather she is Ranjeet Kaur wife of Hari Singh. Therefore, mutation was rightly sanctioned in her favour. The order objection of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the said Maya Devi is not Maya Devi rather she is Ranjeet Kaur wife of Hari Singh. The learned counsel has alleged that the summon issued to the defendant were not served when those were issued in the name of Maya Devi at her parental house rather those were served when those were issued in the name of Ranjeet Kaur at the address of village Dudian, Tehsil Munak, District Sangrur. On this ground, the learned counsel is alleging that Smt. Ranjeet Kaur is a different lady and she is posing herself as Maya Devi. In this regard, this Court is of the view that as already discussed, the marriage of the defendant No. 1 respondent No. 1 with Santokh Singh is well established. If the report on the summon is to be considered, then the report is to be considered as a whole. As per report first of all the summons were sent at the parental address of Maya Devi describing her name as Maya Devi as well as Ranjeet Kaur. The brother of Maya Devi, who appears to be illiterate and has given his thumb impression on the summons received the summons. The name of defendant No. 1 was disclosed to him as Maya Devi wife of Santokh Singh as per the report of summons. He told that she has performed a second marriage and she is residing in village Dundia, in Munak Tehsil in Punjab. The summons were served at her village Dundia in the name of Ranjeet Kaur. In this regard, the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 has given explanation that Maya Devi has gone to village Dundia, where her sister is married and Hari Singh is in her relation, therefore, the summon was served upon her at that village. The explanation appears to be reasonable. However, otherwise also this Court is of the view that from this report at the most it can be concluded that Smt. Maya Devi has performed second marriage and now she is living at village Dundia as Ranjeet Kaur wife of Hari Singh but even her second marriage does not effect her right of inheritance/succession arisen from the first marriage. However, otherwise also this Court is of the view that from this report at the most it can be concluded that Smt. Maya Devi has performed second marriage and now she is living at village Dundia as Ranjeet Kaur wife of Hari Singh but even her second marriage does not effect her right of inheritance/succession arisen from the first marriage. Hence, it does not make any difference that summons were served upon her as Ranjit Kaur wife of Hari Singh as she is established to be Maya Devi. Therefore, the alleged mutation is correct and legal and can not be set aside. The learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit and the appeal is liable to be dismissed." A bare combined reading of both the impugned judgments would show that the learned courts below proceeded on a factually correct and legally justified approach. Each and every relevant aspect of the matter was properly examined, considered and appreciated in the correct perspective before recording their concurrent findings of facts, leaving hardly any scope of interference at the hands of this Court. In view of what has been discussed here-in-above, it can be safely concluded that the impugned judgments are based on sound reasons and the same cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity, therefore, deserve to be upheld, for this reason as well. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on the record of the case in the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below. He also failed to put into service any substantive argument so as to convince this Court to take a different opinion than the one taken in the impugned judgments. Further, no question of law much less substantial question of law has been found involved in the present case, which is sine quo non for interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. Thus, it is unhesitatingly held that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below deserve to be upheld, for this reason also. No other argument was raised. Thus, it is unhesitatingly held that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below deserve to be upheld, for this reason also. No other argument was raised. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. Resultantly, instant appeal stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.