ORDER 1. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants on the question of admission. 2. The appellant/plaintiffs have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2004, passed by the First Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, in C.A.No. 17-A/2004 affirming and confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2003, passed by Second Civil Judge Class-I, Chhindwara, in C.S.No.163-A/2002 whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land in question has been dismissed by recording a concurrent finding of facts against the appellants. 3. The aforesaid suit had been filed by the appellant/plaintiffs alleging that they have purchased the land in dispute by a registered sale deed dated 26.3.1964 and were in possession thereof since the date of execution of the document. It was alleged that the respondent/defendants were interfering in their possession and in such circumstances a decree for declaration and permanent injunction in that regard be passed. 4. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiffs by recording a concurrent finding of facts against the appellants. Both the Courts below have recorded a finding to the effect that the vendor i.e. Sarwan, who had executed the sale deed in favour of the appellants had died on 24.5.1960 and, therefore, the question of his executing the sale deed in the year 1964 does not arise. 5. Before the Courts below, the appellants had filed a death certificate of Sarwan, Ex.P13, according to which Sarwan had died on 17.6.1967 whereas the respondent/defendants had filed a death certificate, Ex.D-6, according to which Sarwan had died on 24.5.1960. 6. The Courts below have also extensively examined both the documents and found that the document, Ex.P13, produced by the appellant/plaintiffs was issued by the police station on 26.4.1989 on the information given by Pramila (PW2) whereas the death certificate produced by the respondent/defendants had been issued on 6.9.1986, which indicates that the information regarding death of Sarwan was received on 24.5.1960. The Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the document Ex.D-6 has been issued on the basis of the records whereas the document, Ex.P13 has been issued in the year 1989 by the police authorities only on information given by Pramila (PW2). The Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the document Ex.D-6 has been issued on the basis of the records whereas the document, Ex.P13 has been issued in the year 1989 by the police authorities only on information given by Pramila (PW2). The Courts below, on the basis of the aforesaid analysis, have relied upon and believed the document, Ex.D-6 and have recorded a concurrent finding to the effect that Sarwan had died on 24.5.1960 and, therefore, he could not have executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiffs on 26.3.1964. 7. The Courts below have also taken into consideration the fact that the actual owner of the property was Thammibai who was declared owner of the property in dispute by the judgment and decree dated 9.9.1943 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Chhindwara, in C.S.No.105/1942 and on her death the names of the respondent/defendants, who are her sons, were recorded in the revenue records. 8. The Courts below have disbelieved the document, Ex.P2, filed by the appellant/plaintiffs which is said to be an agreement executed by the said Thammibai giving consent in favour of Sarwan for executing the sale deed. The Courts below have held that the said agreement does not confer any right or title upon Sarwan to execute the sale deed and as there is no sale deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiffs executed by Thammibai, therefore, they have not acquired any right or title in the land in dispute. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis and concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Courts below the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiffs had been dismissed. 10. Having perused the record, I do not find any perversity or material irregularity in the finding recorded by the Courts below giving rise to a substantial question of law for adjudication in the present appeal. The concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Courts below against the appellant/plaintiffs does not call for any interference, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiffs being meritless is accordingly dismissed. Anil Khare with J. S. Hora for appellants.