JUDGMENT Mr. Amit Rawal, J.: (Oral)- C.M. No.8961-C of 2016 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 9 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. Application is allowed. C.M. No.8962-C of 2016 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 6 days in re-filing of the appeal is condoned. Application is allowed. RSA No.3402 of 2016 1. The appellants-plaintiffs have not been successful before the lower Appellate Court in defending the appeal preferred by the respondent-defendant against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs filed in the year 2011 for laying challenge to the registered release deed dated 24.12.2003. 2. The suit aforementioned was filed on the premise that defendant, real brother of plaintiffs had taken them in the office of Registrar for the purpose of execution and registration of the power of attorney but converted the same into release deed, therefore, there was fraud and misrepresentation. Mutation to that effect was also not effected, much less, jamabandi to that effect also reflected the identical situation. On noticing all these facts, the trial Court decreed the suit but the lower Appellate Court has committed illegality and perversity in reversing the well reasoned finding of the trial Court. The provisions of Article 58 of the Limitation Act would not come into play but of Article 59. Even the latest jamabandi also showed ownership of the aforementioned property. 3. I am afraid aforementioned argument of Mr. Makkar is not sustainable. It would be apt to reproduce Article 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act as under:- 58. To obtain any other declaration Three years When the right to sue first accrues 59. To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract Three years When the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument            or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first becomes known to him. 4. The limitation to challenge a registered document as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act is three years. It is common practice amongst litigants to keep silent and rake up the cause of action as and when desired to bring the case within the provisions of Article 59 without establishing threat to title or possession. 4. The limitation to challenge a registered document as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act is three years. It is common practice amongst litigants to keep silent and rake up the cause of action as and when desired to bring the case within the provisions of Article 59 without establishing threat to title or possession. No doubt in some cases where actual fraud has been pleaded, the Legislature in its wisdom has kept the interest of such litigants intact but in the instant case, best possible evidence in order to bring the case within Article 59 i.e. khasra girdawari has been withheld. That would have been a clincher to establish that possession was with the plaintiffs and not with the defendant. In such circumstances, adverse inference is inevitable. The lower Appellate Court is not only last court of law but fact also, therefore, the finding rendered by the lower Appellate Court cannot be faulted with. 5. I do not intend to subscribe to the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant to form a different opinion than the one arrived at by the lower Appellate Court, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.