JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration, for therethrough setting aside the entries, borne in the revenue record, and, appertaining to the suit kahsra numbers. The learned trial Court non suited the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs being aggrieved therefrom, hence, instituted Civil Appeal No. 11/13 of 2005/1995, before the learned First Appellate Court, and, thereon, a, verdict rather decreeing, the plaintiffs' suit rather stood rendered. The defendants, through, the instant RSA, constituted before this Court, strive to beget reversal, of the verdict pronounced, upon, the afore civil appeal, by the learned first appellate Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that initially the suit was instituted by Ramu before the learned trial Court declaration and, permanent injunction alleging therein that he was owner in possession of land measuring 8.1 bighas, being ¼ share of land measuring 32/2 bighas, situated in village Dadhol. Defendant Santu (now deceased) had no right, title or interest in the suit land. The defendant Santu had illegally started interference with possession of the plaintiff Ramu over the suit land. It was further pleaded that in case the defendant had got any mutation attested in his favour qua the suit land, the same was result of fraud and the plaintiff was not bound by the same. The plaintiff had requested defendant Santu to admit his claim over the suit land, but the defendant Santu did not concede to his request. Hence the suit. 3. Deceased defendants Santu contested the suit and filed written statement to the plaint, wherein, he had averred that the plaintiff had gifted the suit land in his favour by way of a gift deed of 23.11.1967, registered on 22.12.1967. The possession of suit land was delivered to defendant Santu. Mutation was also attested in his favour on 29.2.1968. Thus, the defendant Santu had become owner of the suit land on the basis of a valid gift made by the plaintiff in his favour. In nutshell the defendant Santu had refuted the entire case of the plaintiff. He had also alleged that the plaintiff Ram was estopped from filing the suit, and, that the suit was not maintainable. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement(s) of the defendant(s), wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement(s) and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. He had also alleged that the plaintiff Ram was estopped from filing the suit, and, that the suit was not maintainable. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement(s) of the defendant(s), wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement(s) and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? OPP. 2. Whether entries in favour of defendant No.1 in the revenue record qua the suit property being wrong and not binding on the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession qua suit property in an alternative relief? OPP 5. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped as alleged? OPD. 6A. Whether the defendant is owner in possession of the suit property under a valid gift from the plaintiff dated 23.11.1976?OPD 6B. Whether this suit has been filed by the plaintiff fin collusion with defendants No.2 to 4, as alleged? If so to effect? OPD. 7. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the plaintiffs/respondents herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed, the, appeal, and, reversed, the, findings recorded by the learned trial Court 7. Now the defendants/appellant(s) herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein, they assail the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 01.03.2006, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellant(s) against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the findings of reversal of the learned first appellate Court are dehors the evidence on record? Substantial question of law No.1 8. Whether the findings of reversal of the learned first appellate Court are dehors the evidence on record? Substantial question of law No.1 8. The defendant for resisting the plaintiffs suit, hence, for, declaration, for, therethrough the revenue entries, as, borne in the revenue records, and, appertaining to the suit khasra numbers, being set aside, stood rested, upon, theirs placing reliance, upon, gift deed executed, on 23.11.1967, by one Ramu. Though, the afore gift deed is embodied in Ex.DW2/A, and, also in Ex.DW 3/A, yet both the afore exhibits, are, photo copies of the original, of, the apposite gift deed, and, the afore stated exhibition marks, were made thereon, only after, the, requisite permission, for theirs being adduced, as secondary evidence, vis-a-vis, the original, rather standing granted, by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, had accepted, the valid execution of the afore stated exhibits, even when the attesting witnesses thereto, remained unexamined, by the defendants, (i) rather, on anvil, qua the defendant stating, vis-a-vis, theirs no longer surviving, at the stage, when they, are required to be stepping into the witness box, for proving, the valid, and, due execution(s) thereof, by the afore Ramu, (ii) and, also on anvil, of, DW-3, the son of scribe, of Ex.DW2/A, and, of, Ex.DW3/A, rendering an echoing, in his testification, wherethrough, he identified, the, occurrence of signatures, of his deceased father, upon, the afore exhibits, and, in pursuance whereto, an order, of, mutation, embodied in Ex. DB, stood attested, vis-a-vis, the defendants, (iii) and, also possession of the suit property, as, embodied in Ex.DW2/A, and, in Ex. DW3/A, stood delivered hence to the defendant(s), (iv) thereupon, a conclusion was recorded, qua all, the statutory ingredients, for, proving, the due, and, valid execution, of, Ex.DW2/A, and, of Ex.DW3/A, hence, standing cogently proven, whereupon, the learned trial Court, non suited the plaintiff. 9. DW3/A, stood delivered hence to the defendant(s), (iv) thereupon, a conclusion was recorded, qua all, the statutory ingredients, for, proving, the due, and, valid execution, of, Ex.DW2/A, and, of Ex.DW3/A, hence, standing cogently proven, whereupon, the learned trial Court, non suited the plaintiff. 9. In the first appeal, as, constituted before the learned First Appellate Court, against the dismissal, of, the plaintiffs' suit, by the learned trial Court, (a) the learned first appellate Court, emphasized, upon, the necessity, of, adduction, of, invincible, and, cogent proof, vis-a-vis, Ramu, given, his being an illiterate person, as, apparent, from, the factum of his thumb marking, Ex.DW2/A, and, Ex.DW3/A, hence, being statutorily, proven, to, rather standing readover, and, explained its contents, and, after his comprehending, the, contents borne therein, (b) and, whereafter it being also imperative to the defendants, to prove, qua his appending his thumb impression thereon, in the presence of marginal witnesses thereto, (c) and, rather thereupon, there being also a dire necessity, for, the marginal witnesses, to Ex.DW2/A, hence, stepping into the witness box, reiteratedly for theirs making hence in their testifications, vivid echoings, vis-a-vis, the afore relevant prime factum probandum, (d) whereas, theirs' not stepping, into the witness box, constraining a conclusion, that, the gift deed, borne in Ex.DW2/A, and, in Ex.DW3/A, not being executed by Ramu, rather after its contents being readover, and, explained to him, (e) and, after his comprehending all the contents thereof, and, rather thereafter his making, his thumb impressions thereon, hence, in the presence, of, the marginal witnesses thereto. Obviously, the learned first appellate Court, discarded or overruled the afore reason, as assigned, by the learned trial Court, for, non suiting, the plaintiff, (f) and, the predominant fact which prevailed, upon, it to assign strength, to the afore reason, ensues from qua during his life time, the donor one Ramu casting, a, challenge, upon, the gift deed, (g) and, the afore challenge being made hence after, the, apt order attesting hence mutation borne in Ex.DC, standing recorded, vis-a-vis, the defendant, in purported, consonance, with the gift deed, borne in Ex.DW2/A and, in Ex.DW3/A. Consequently, hence all afore reasons, assigned by the learned first Appellate Court, are meritworthy, and, do not merit interference, (h) as reiteratedly, the factum, of, the donor one Ramu, appending his thumb impression, upon Ex.DW2/A, upon, his comprehending all the contents thereof, rather upon theirs being readover, and, explained to him, visibly remained unproven, rather by the defendant, by hence his examining, the, attesting witnesses' thereto. Therefore, the mere factum of attestation, of, mutation, borne, in, Ex.DC, and, vis-a-vis, the defendant, being hence recorded, rather being wholly inconsequential, for concluding, qua, the afore overriding preeminent contentious factum, being therethrough rather standing proven, more so, given, the donor one Ramu, rather during his life time, making a challenge, upon, the gift deed. 10. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved defendant, during, the pendency of the instant appeal, had cast, an application constituted, under Order, 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, application whereof bears CMP No. 14763 of 2013, wherethrough, he seeks leave of this Court, for examination, of, one Bhupender Singh, son of late Shri Amar Singh, the latter being one of the marginal witness to Ex.DW2/A, (a) for therethrough, the defendant, hence, proving, the, valid, and, due execution of Ex.DW2/A, rather, through the son of Amar Singh, stepping into the witness box, for his proving, the occurrence, of, the authentic signatures of his father, one Amar Singh, upon, EX.DW2/A, and, upon, Ex.DW3/A. The application at hand, is to suffer outright rejection, as the afore Bhupender Singh, son of Amar Singh, may prove, only the existence, of, valid signatures of his deceased father Amar Singh, upon, Ex. DW2/A and, upon, Ex.DW3/A, (b) however, he is wholly incapacitated, to, prove the overriding, and, overwhelming factum, vis-a-vis, the deceased donor, one Ramu being explained, and, readover hence all the recitals borne in Ex.DW2/A, and, his after comprehending, and, understanding them (c) and, thereafter, he, with, a, free volitional state of mind, making his thumb impression(s) thereon. The afore endeavour, is, wholly redundant, and, unnecessary, and, is merely a feeble contrivance, of, the defendants, for overcoming the afore gross omissions, and, mis-steps, to rather through one Bhupender Singh, the son of Amar Singh, hence, strive to, prove, the, afore factum probandum, despite during, the trial of the suit, the afore Amar Singh rather surviving. For there being the afore gross omissions, and, derelictions, on the part of the defendants, to, despite, the afore Amar Singh, being alive, during the pendency of the civil suit, and, thereafter, his being also alive, during, the pendency of the first appeal, and, thereafter, before the Court, rather obviously makes, the defendants, hence, recoursing, the afore endeavours before this Court, to, stand ingrained with an inherent fallacy, (d) conspicuously, given this Court, upon, rendering a decision, upon, FAO No. 227, 2003, on 23.11.2004, as arose before this Court, against an order, recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, whereupon, the defendant was permitted, to adduce oral additional evidence, comprised in his examining Amar Singh, Paras Ram, son of Shri Beli Ram, and, Lekh Ram son of Ram Singh, rather for proving the aforestated factum probandum, hence, partly affirming the afore portion, of, the impugned verdict, (e) and, thereafter this Court making a direction, upon, the first appellate Court, to permit, the afore witnesses to be examined by the defendants, with an opportunity to the plaintiff, to adduce rebuttal evidence. In pursuance to the afore directions made by this Court, upon, FAO No. 227 of 2003, the learned trial Court, on 1.4.2005, granted leave to the defendants, for, examining Amar Singh, hence through, a Local Commissioner. However, on 4.4.2005, an order was recorded, by the learned Civil Judge, vis-a-vis, the Local Commissioner hence visiting the home of DW Amar Singh, however, with the latter being not found thereat, for the relevant purpose, (f) thereupon, the learned trial Court, closed the defendants' evidence, and, listed the matter, for adduction of evidence in rebuttal by the plaintiffs, and, the order rendered 4.4.2005, has, remained unassailed. Moreover, during the pendency, of, Civil Appeal No.11/13 of 2005/1995, the defendant Prema re-strived, the afore endeavour. However, through an order, made on 14.09.2005, by the learned First Appellate Court, his re-endeavors also suffered, the, ill-fate of failure. The order, made on 14.09.2005 by the learned first appellate Court, remaining unassailed, and, its hence acquire conclusivity. The effects thereof, is that, when, despite the marginal witness, vis-a-vis, the gift deed, namely, one Amar Singh, remaining alive during the pendency of the proceedings, both before the learned trial Court, and, before the learned First Appellate Court, and, with the afore requisite granted apposite leave(s) remaining unstrived, hence for materialization, rather by the defendants, reiteratedly despite the testification, of, one Amar Singh, hence, comprising the best evidence, for, proving the aforestated factum probandum, thereupon, also the instant application, is, a sheer contrivance, and, warrants dismissal. 11. Consequently, as aforestated, given the proposed additional evidence, being insufficient, to enable the defendant, to adduce, the, best discharging evidence, as, appertains to the deceased testator, being readover, and, explained the contents of Ex.DW2/A, and, thereafter with, the, fullest volitional awakening, his appending, his thumb impression, upon, Ex.DW2/A, rather when the afore factum may have been proven, hence, by the marginal witness, one Amar Singh, and, cannot be proven by his son, except his son proving the authenticity, of, occurrence thereon, of valid signatures of his father, thereupon, also the afore application rather merits dismissal. 12. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions, as arrived, by both the learned first appellate Court, being based, upon a proper, and, mature appreciation of evidence, on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first appellate Court, has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Consequently, substantial question of law is answered in favour of the respondents, and, against the appellants. 13. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the judgment, and, decree, rendered by the learned first appellate Court, upon, Civil Appeal No. 11/13 of 2005/1995 is affirmed, and, maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.