JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant, Smt. Bhooli is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 1.10.2011 passed by the A.C.J.M. (Sr. Division) and A.C.J.M. No.13, Bassi, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed her suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 4.11.1987 and for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants. She is equally aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6.3.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed and permanent injunction before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) NO.13, Bassi, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur against the respondents. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties framed seven issues. After taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial court dismissed the said suit on 1.10.2011. Aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, appellants preferred an appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Bassi, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur, and the learned District Judge, vide judgment dated 6.3.2013 also dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 1.10.2011 passed by the learned trial court. Thus, there has been a concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned trial court has wrongly concluded that since the appellant happened to be a married daughter and since she belonged to Meena community, she was not entitled to inherit her father's property. However, in case, a person does not have any son and has only daughters, in such a case, the daughters are entitled to inherit their father's property. Therefore, the learned trial court has committed a grave error in applying the law. Hence, substantial questions of law arise in the second appeal. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Vimal Kumar Jain, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that entire case is based on facts. Moreover, the appellant is trying to overturn a large number of events which have occurred after her father's death. In fact, she is trying to get the sale-deed dated 4.11.1987 cancelled in the year 2006. Therefore, it is only a clever ploy to turn the historical clock back. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 6. In fact, she is trying to get the sale-deed dated 4.11.1987 cancelled in the year 2006. Therefore, it is only a clever ploy to turn the historical clock back. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 6. This Court has asked the learned counsel for the appellant to show the specific law which permits a married daughter, belonging to Scheduled Castes, namely Meena, to inherit her parental property, in case she does not have any brother. However, the learned counsel has failed to bring any such law to the notice of this Court. 7. A bare perusal of the judgment dated 1.10.2011 clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate has relied upon the case of Gulab v. Board of Revenue & Others [RRT 2006 (2) 1085] , wherein this Court has held that a married daughter, belonging to Scheduled Castes, namely Meena would not be entitled to inherit her parental property. Thus, the learned counsel has failed to show any exception to the principle established by this Court. Hence, no substantial question of law arise in the present appeals. 8. A bare perusal of both the judgments clearly reveal that the entire case is based on questions of facts. The questions of facts, which have been critically analysed and adjudicated upon by both the courts below. It is now a settled position of law that the Regular First Appellate Court is the last court of fact. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in these second appeals. They are, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******