JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. Appellant-defendant has laid this second appeal under Section 100 CPC to challenge the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.09.2015 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Nagaur (for short, 'learned first appellant Court'), whereby learned first appellate Court has affirmed the judgment dated 11.09.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nagaur (for short, 'learned trial Court') decreeing the suit of respondents-plaintiffs for redemption of mortgage. 2. The bare necessary facts are that respondent-plaintiff instituted a civil suit before the learned trial Court for redemption of mortgage property 'a Nohara', which was mortgaged with the appellant-defendants by his ancestors on 03.04.1963. In order to prove the factum of mortgage, requisite document and relevant facts were pleaded in the plaint. On behalf of performa respondents/defendants, written statement was filed accepting the averments contained in the plaint. However, the present appellant and some of the other defendants filed their separate written statements disputing the claim of the plaintiff-respondent. Subsequently, the plaintiff-respondent has also filed rejoinder. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the rival parties, learned trial Court framed six issues for determination. Learned trial Court, in its judgment, decided Issue Nos. 1 & 3 simultaneously for adjudging the fact about execution of the mortgage deed and so also genuineness of the mortgage deed. On the basis of plea of the appellant, a specific issue was framed that the alleged mortgage deed is a spurious document and prepared by practising fraud. Learned trial Court, while recording its finding on Issue Nos. 1 & 3, found that in fact the mortgage deed was executed and the same is genuine document. That apart, the other issues were also decided by the learned trial Court in favour of respondents-plaintiffs. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, the appellant and the performa respondents preferred first appeal before the learned first appellate Court. Learned first appellate Court, after examining the matter afresh, made sincere endeavour to analise the finding of the learned trial Court on Issue Nos. 1 & 3. 5. Upon consideration of the said finding, learned first appellate Court fully concurred with the said finding & conclusion of the learned trial Court. That apart, learned first appellate Court also approved the finding of the learned trial Court on other issues. 1 & 3. 5. Upon consideration of the said finding, learned first appellate Court fully concurred with the said finding & conclusion of the learned trial Court. That apart, learned first appellate Court also approved the finding of the learned trial Court on other issues. It is in that background, learned first appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal, affirmed the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused both the impugned judgments. 7. After perusal of the impugned judgments, more particularly, the impugned judgment of first appellate Court, in my considered opinion, learned first appellate Court has not committed any error, much less substantial error, in appreciation of evidence. Both the learned Courts below have concurrently recorded finding on crucial Issue Nos. 1 & 3 against the appellant which is based on sound appreciation of evidence. After thorough examination of the matter, I am unable to find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 8. It is trite that scope of judicial review in second appeal is very much limited and more particularly, when there is a concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below. Even on threadbare examination, I have not been able to notice any perversity in the impugned judgment of the learned first appellate Court and so also there is no semblance of proof that both the Courts below have omitted to consider the evidence/misread it for arriving at its decision. 9. In totality, the concurrent finding of both the learned Courts below requires no interference sans involvement of substantial question of law. 10. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed summarily.