ORDER : By way of this appeal filed under Section 100 of the code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has prayed for setting aside of the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.III, Amb, District Una, HP in Civil suit No. 794 of 2014, titled as Satya Devi versus Sham Lal, dated 30.4.2016, whereby the suit for declaration filed by the present appellant stood dismissed by the Learned Trial Court, as also for setting aside the judgment passed by the Court of Learned Additional District Judge (I), Una, Circuit Court at Amb, in Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2017, titled as Satya Devi versus Shyam Lal, dated 16.7.2019, vide which the appeal filed by the present appellant against the judgment passed by the Learned Trial Court stood dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties for the purpose of admission and also gone through the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. 3. Appellant herein filed a suit for declaration that she had inherited the suit land from her husband Shri Daulat Ram. She was issueless and defendant who was her nephew had approached her in the month of July, 2004 and advised her to take benefit of an old age pension scheme. He took her to Tehsil Amb, on the pretext of signing documents so that she could be granted old age pension by the Welfare Department. Defendant got signed a document from the plaintiff which in fact was a gift deed qua the suit land purported to be executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. She never executed any gift deed on 19.7.2002, in favour of the defendant and the deed was procured by the defendant by exercising undue influence upon her and was a result of fraud, misrepresentation in connivance with the marginal witnesses and the deed writer. It was further the case of the plaintiff that mutations which were attested by the defendant on the strength of the gift deed were also null and void. It was further the case of the plaintiff that mutations which were attested by the defendant on the strength of the gift deed were also null and void. According to the plaintiff, about two month before the filing of the suit, illegal threats were extended to her by the defendant of her being ousted from her abadi and defendant also threatened to alienate the suit land on the basis of the said gift deed and this is how the plaintiff came to know about the execution of the gift deed. It was on these facts that the suit for declaration stood filed by the plaintiff that the gift deed are bad in the eyes of law. 4. The suit was contested by the defendant inter-alia on the ground that the gift deed was duly executed by the plaintiff in his favour in lieu of service rendered by him to the plaintiff. At the time of the execution of the gift deed, the plaintiff was in sound and disposing mind and the gift deed was executed by her out of her own free will and not under any coercion or undue influence. 5. The suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court by holding that the plaintiff miserably failed to prove that any fraud was committed upon her by the defendant. Learned Trial Court held that the gift deed was duly proved by DW1, Malkiyat Chand, DW2, Santosh Kumar, retired Sub Registrar Amb and DW4, Vijay Kumar as well as PW5 Hari Singh, who were the attesting witnesses of the gift deed. It held that what animosity DW1, DW4 and DW5, were having with the plaintiff, could not be explained or established by the plaintiff. Learned Trial Court took note of the fact that in her cross-examination, the plaintiff had admitted that the witnesses had no enmity with her. Learned Trial Court also held that the conduct of the plaintiff created suspicion that she had not approached the Court with clean hands as was evident from the fact that she even refused to identify her photo on the gift deed which in fact was her own photograph as observed by the Court at the time of her cross examination. Learned Trial Court also held that the conduct of the plaintiff created suspicion that she had not approached the Court with clean hands as was evident from the fact that she even refused to identify her photo on the gift deed which in fact was her own photograph as observed by the Court at the time of her cross examination. Learned Court also held that the credibility of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff was doubtful as it had come in evidence that people from the village had filed complaint against witness PW2 Ashok Kumar with regard to misappropriation of the government funds. Learned Trial Court also held that nothing stood adduced by way of the evidence by the plaintiff on record from which it could be inferred that the execution of the gift deed was aresult of fraud and misrepresentation. On these basis learned Trial Court dismissed the suit. 6. In appeal, these findings were up held by the learned Appellate Court. It held that evidence proved that plaintiff was present before the Sub Registrar on 19.7.2004, when the gift deed was registered. Learned Appellate Court also held that though the plaintiff had cleverly feigned ignorance qua her presence before Sub Registrar and feigned ignorance with regard to her signatures on Ext.DW1/A but the photograph affixed on the gift deed clearly demonstrated that the plaintiff was indeed present on the day of registration of the gift deed before the Sub Registrar. 7. Learned Appellate Court also held that the factum of the gift deed being genuine was duly proved by the defendant through the testimonies of DW1, DW2, DW4 and DW5. DW1, the scribe of the deed testified that the deed was scribed by him at the instance and instructions of the plaintiff and the same was also read over to the plaintiff. He stated that plaintiff understood and accepted the contents thereof to be correct and thereafter appended her signature on the gift deed in the presence of DW4 and DW5. Learned Appellate Court also held that DW4 and DW5 had categorically stated that plaintiff got scribed gift deed from DW1 and executed the same in their presence. They testified that the gift deed was voluntarily executed by the plaintiff in favour of Shyam Lal. Learned Appellate Court also held that DW4 and DW5 had categorically stated that plaintiff got scribed gift deed from DW1 and executed the same in their presence. They testified that the gift deed was voluntarily executed by the plaintiff in favour of Shyam Lal. Learned Appellate Court took note of the fact that these witnesses had testified that the documents were presented before the Sub Registrar where the plaintiff made a statement regarding execution of the deed by her. In addition, DW2 the Sub Registrar also testified that when deed Ext. DW1/A (gift deed) was presented before him by the plaintiff for registration, he read over the contents of the same to the plaintiff and the plaintiff admitted the contents thereof to be correct in the presence of the witnesses Vijay and Hari Singh. On the basis of these findings, Learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal, up held the findings returned by the Learned Trial Court by holding that from the material on record it could not be held that defendant had failed to discharge the burden which laid fastened upon him to prove that the gift deed was got voluntarily executed by the plaintiff in his favour. 8. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiff has filed this appeal. The suit filed by the plaintiff was for declaration that the gift deed in issue was got executed by the defendant by exercising undue influence upon the plaintiff. There are concurrent findings returned by both the Learned Courts below to the effect that the gift deed was indeed voluntarily executed by the plaintiff which has been so testified by the deed writer, the marginal witnesses and also the Sub Registrar who registered the deed. 9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for appellant on the basis of record could not demonstrate that the concurrent finding so returned by both the Courts below were perverse and not borne out from the record. Learned Trial Court has appreciated the pleadings and the evidence on record and after elaborate discussions thereof, dismissed the suit. Similarly, the Learned Appellate Court also has taken into consideration the entire evidence on record while affirming the findings returned by the Learned Trial Court. 10. Learned Trial Court has appreciated the pleadings and the evidence on record and after elaborate discussions thereof, dismissed the suit. Similarly, the Learned Appellate Court also has taken into consideration the entire evidence on record while affirming the findings returned by the Learned Trial Court. 10. The execution of the gift deed has been duly proved by the defendant through the statements of the scribe of the gift deed as well as marginal witnesses and the Sub Registrar who registered the same. All these witnesses have deposed in unison that the gift deed was prepared at the instance of the plaintiff and the same after being scribed was read over and explained to her and she appended her signatures thereafter upon the same in front of the marginal witnesses. Even, the Sub Registrar has deposed that it was the plaintiff who presented the gift deed for registration and the same was read over and explained to the plaintiff by him and she stated to have understood the contents of the gift deed. On the other hand, there is no cogent evidence worth reliance placed on record by the plaintiff to establish that the gift deed was got executed by defendant by exercising undue influence or fraud upon the plaintiff. That being so, as it is a question of fact whether the execution of the gift deed in issue was a result of misrepresentation and fraud which stands decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant by two Courts below, this Court does not finds any substantial question of law involved in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.