JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records. 2. It is admitted that Ram Bhawan had two sons namely, Baleshwar and Jagarnath. After death of Baleshwar, his four sons (plaintiffs of original suit) became his legal heir. Admittedly, disputed property is agricultural in nature, the owner and bhumidhar of which, was Jagarnath whose name was recorded in revenue records. One sale-deed dated 25.8.1990 was executed on behalf of Jagarnath in favour of defendants no. 1 to 4 of original suit, marginal witness of which, were defendants no. 5 and 6, then plaintiffs had filed Original Suit No. 802/1995 with averment that this sale-deed was not executed by Jagarnath, but was executed by impostor in place of Jagarnath, and is liable to be cancelled. It was also pleaded in the plaint that Jagarnath is not known for more than 7 years and 30 years and in his place any impostor was presented for registration of the sale-deed, therefore said sale-deed is liable to be cancelled. On these pleadings, plaintiff had filed suit for cancellation of aforesaid sale-deed dated 25.8.1990 and for permanent injunction regarding disputed property against defendants no. 1 to 4. 3. Defendants no. 2 to 4 had filed written statement, in which plaint averments were denied and it was pleaded that Jagarnath had willingly executed sale-deed in question in favour of defendants for proper consideration and got the sale-deed registered before Sub-Registrar. After execution of sale-deed, name of defendants no. 1 to 4 has been mutated over disputed agricultural property, who are in its possession. Plaintiffs' suit is time barred, they have no right to sue and suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. After affording opportunity of hearing to parties, the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), West, Ballia had dismissed the original suit by its judgment dated 21.7.2011. In this judgment, trial court had given specific finding that plaintiff had failed to prove his case. He had not produced photograph of Jagarnath. He could not prove the civil death of Jagarnath. He had allegedly pleaded that according to one purchaser Suryanath, sale-deed was not executed, but said person was not examined in court for being cross-examined. Trial court had also held that in revenue records, name of Jagarnath has been mutated. He had not produced photograph of Jagarnath. He could not prove the civil death of Jagarnath. He had allegedly pleaded that according to one purchaser Suryanath, sale-deed was not executed, but said person was not examined in court for being cross-examined. Trial court had also held that in revenue records, name of Jagarnath has been mutated. Plaintiff had pleaded that Dhanraj was present as impostor, but there is no evidence of Dhanraj being alive or dead, and his photo was not produced in court, so that it could have been verified from the photograph present on sale-deed. Trial court had specifically held that sale-deed in question was executed by Jagarnath and transaction was completed in good faith. On these grounds, trial court had dismissed the original suit. 5. Against the judgment of trial court, Civil Appeal No. 66/2011 was preferred by plaintiffs of original suit. This appeal was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 5.3.2016 of Additional District Judge, Court No.-1, Ballia. In this judgment the first appellate court had independently appreciated the evidences including those relating to alleged averment of civil death or non-availability of Jagarnath, alleged admission of Suryanath and the point of impostor. First appellate court had also discussed the evidences of the plaintiffs. On the basis of these evidences, first appellate court had reached to the conclusion that plaintiffs had failed to prove their case that sale-deed in question was not executed by Jagarnath, or Jagarnath was subjected to civil death, or that any admission of purchaser was ever made regarding alleged improper execution of sale-deed, or that sale-deed was allegedly executed by any impostor. With these findings, first appellate court had confirmed the judgment of trial court and dismissed the first appeal. 6. Against the judgment of trial court as well as first appellate court, present second appeal has been preferred by plaintiffs of the original suit. 7. The appellants contended that Suryanath was the purchaser in sale-deed, who had admitted before revenue court that sale-deed was not properly executed. This shows that dispute of ownership of disputed agricultural property is still continuing in revenue court. In fact the main dispute in this matter relates to ownership of disputed property. Admittedly, disputed property was owned by Jagarnath, whose death or civil death is not proved even from plaintiffs' evidences. This shows that dispute of ownership of disputed agricultural property is still continuing in revenue court. In fact the main dispute in this matter relates to ownership of disputed property. Admittedly, disputed property was owned by Jagarnath, whose death or civil death is not proved even from plaintiffs' evidences. Therefore if any forgery has been committed for the property of Jagarnath, then in that case sale-deed in question was voidable at the option of Jagarnath only. The plaintiffs have no right to institute suit on behalf Jagarnath. Plaintiffs' suit will be maintainable only when they are accepted or proved as legal heir of Jagarnath or their bhumidhari rights are declared and recognized in civil court. Such dispute is still pending in revenue court. Without recognizing or declaring the plaintiffs to be the owner and bhumidhar of disputed agricultural land, original suit cannot be decreed, and they themselves cannot be said to have right to institute suit for the property of Jagarnath. Since civil court has no right to decide main relief of declaration and recognition of bhumidhari rights of disputed agricultural property, therefore legally original suit was not maintainable in civil court. Apart from it, in absence of any right to sue as legal heir and legal representative of Jagarnath, plaintiffs do not have right to institute suit for his property. 8. Apart from it, trial court and first appellate court had independently and separately appreciated meticulously the facts and evidences, and then given their conclusions that plaintiffs have failed to prove its case on every count. Such findings of trial court are found correct and acceptable. None of the findings of lower courts are infirm or perverse that may require interference in second appeal by re-appreciation of evidences. 9. The only dispute between the parties relating to facts as to whether disputed sale-deed was executed by Jagarnath or it was executed by any impostor. This is not a question of law, but is a question of fact that could be decided on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, as has been done in this case. Apart from it, it has been held already that original suit was not legally maintainable, and also plaintiffs-appellants have no right to sue in this matter. 10. This is not a question of law, but is a question of fact that could be decided on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, as has been done in this case. Apart from it, it has been held already that original suit was not legally maintainable, and also plaintiffs-appellants have no right to sue in this matter. 10. On examination of the reasonings recorded by the trial court, which are affirmed by the learned first appellate court in first appeal, I am of the view that the judgments of the trial court as well as the first appellate court are well reasoned, based upon proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record. No question of law much less a substantial question of law is involved in this case before this Court. No perversity or infirmity is found in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court that has been affirmed by the first appellate court to warrant interference in this appeal. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs can be sustained. 11. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed.