JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments of both the Courts below. 2. In the instant appeal, learned trial Court has dismissed the suit of appellant seeking the release deed declared illegal, which is allegedly shown to be executed by her in favour of her brother Ramjilal in respect of her one-third share in the agricultural land recorded in her mother's name situated in Chak 74 NP, Khatauni No.45, Stone No.264/233, Sq.No.45-5.819 hectare land, Stone No.265/333, Sq.No.46, 0.253 hectare, Stone No.264/334, Sq.No.60, 3.226 hectare total measuring 9.298 hectare land with water course. 3. Learned trial Court, after thoroughly examining the matter, by its judgment and decree dated 1st of March, 2008 dismissed the suit. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, appellant approached learned First Appellate Court and the learned First Appellate Court, while fully concurring with the findings and conclusions of learned trial Court, approved the said judgment by dismissing the appeal of the appellant vide order dated 17th April, 2012. 5. I have bestowed my consideration to the impugned judgment and also scanned the entire record of the case. 6. After examining the matter, in its entirety, in my considered opinion, present case is a case of pure and simple finding of fact based on sound appreciation of evidence. Learned trial Court, at the threshold, examined the matter with bird's eye-view and non-suited the appellant by dismissing the suit and thereafter the learned lower appellate Court has also fully concurred with the said finding by upholding the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. 7. It is trite that first appellate Court is the final Court of fact and normally this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence available on record for exploring possibility of some different conclusion. This sort of eventuality may occur if the findings of the lower appellate Court are perverse, legally infirm, or contrary to the materials available on record, or against the sound legal principles. No such infirmity is noticeable in the finding of fact arrived at by the last Court of fact being the first appellate Court. One more hurdle, with which the appellant-plaintiff is to tackle, in the instant case, is that the second appeal is bereft of any substantial question of law. No such infirmity is noticeable in the finding of fact arrived at by the last Court of fact being the first appellate Court. One more hurdle, with which the appellant-plaintiff is to tackle, in the instant case, is that the second appeal is bereft of any substantial question of law. Existence of substantial question of law is sine-qua-non for maintainability of second appeal. 8. On delving deep into the matter, I am unable to find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal and even the questions of law sought to be canvassed are also not satisfying the requirements of Section 100 CPC. Resultantly, appeal fails and same is, hereby, dismissed.