JUDGMENT 1.Heard Shri S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.1.2005 passed by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge Sidhi, in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/05 affirming and confirming the judgment and decree dated 3.12.1996 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Sidhi, in Civil Suit No.153-A/92. 3. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and cancellation of the sale deed by alleging that the land in dispute had been given to him by the original owner Betaiya alias Bindua Teli S/o Devi Teli and that subsequent to the said alienation he was in possession of the land and therefore, he be declared as owner and the sale deed executed by the defendants in respect of the same land be declared as null and void. 4. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit by recording a finding to the effect that the appellant has failed to prove and establish that the land in question at any point of time was alienated or givento the appellant by Betaiya alias Bindua Teli and that Betaiya alias Bindua Teli died issue-less and therefore, the land would devolve upon the surviving members of Betaiya alias Bindua Teli or his close relative, i.e. the defendant no. 2 who is the grand son of his brother. 5. The only substantial question of law sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that the family tree was not proved or established by the defendant no. 2 and in such circumstances, the courts below have erred in law in holding that after the death of Betaiya alias Bindua Teli, the land belonged to respondent no. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused paragraph 9 of the judgment of the trial court as well as the judgment of the appellate court, it is observed that the courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/ plaintiff only on the ground that the appellant/ plaintiff has failed to prove and establish that the land was given to him on the strength of some alienation by Betaiya alias Bindua Teli. The courts below have also recorded a finding to the effect that there was no oral or documentary evidence on record to substantiate the same. The courts below have gone into to accept the family tree mentioned by the defendant/respondent in his written statement on the ground that the statement of defendant no. 2 has not been controverted or falsified by the appellant/plaintiff nor has any evidence in rebuttal been produced and in such circumstances in the absence of rebuttal, his statement deserves to be accepted. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, I do not find any perversity having been committed by the courts below giving rise to a substantial question of law. The aforesaid concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below is based on proper assimilation of oral and documentary evidence on record which does not warrant any interference by this Court as it does not suffer from any perversity. 7. In the circumstances, I do not find any substantial question of law arising for adjudication in the present appeal. The appeal being merit-less is accordingly dismissed.