RSA 183 of 2007. 18.8.2008 Present: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A.K.Sharma, counsel for the respondent. This is the plaintiff’s second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration that she is the owner in possession of the suit land and that the purported gift deed executed on 3.2.1978 in favour of the defendant is the result of fraud, misrepresentation etc. On the settled issues before the learned trial Court, issue No. 1 which was fundamental to the decision of the entire case which was as to whether the gift deed dated 3.2.1978 of the land comprised in khata No. 10/16, kitta 4, measuring 5-12 bighas and land in khata No. 11/17-18 kitta -3 measuring 3-19 bighas as per jamabandi for the year 1971-72 and at present khasra Nos. 394, 395, 412 and 418 khewat No. 14/14 khatoni No. 18, measuring 5-12 bighas and khasra No. 355, 365, khewat No. 15/15 khatoni No. 19, measuring 3-12 bighas (44/343 share = 0.9 bighas) total 6 bighas as per jamabandi for the year 1992-93 situated in village Kharota, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P., is null, void and illegal, the trial Court, on an appreciation of the entire evidence and consideration of gift -2- deed Ex.DX on which the plaintiff admitted her thumb impression and the endorsement Ex.DW-2/A made by the Sub Registrar in the presence of two witnesses Wazir Singh and Bhagat Ram, coupled with the fact that on the same day mutation Ex.DY was attested in presence of the plaintiff, dismissed the suit holding that the defendant was in possession of the suit land. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reappreciated the entire evidence on record holding that Ex.DX is a genuine document and that there is no evidence of misrepresentation and fraud etc. The possession of the defendant on the land was affirmed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant now seeks to assail the document on the very same facts as urged before the learned two Courts below. He submits that considering illiteracy of the plaintiff, the Courts should have been cautious in their approach in accepting of the deed having been validly executed by the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In second appeal, it is not the function / duty of this Court to reappreciate evidence. From the judgments of the two Courts below, I do not find any perversity in the reasoning of the Courts below, nor do I find that this is a case where intervention of this -3- Court is called for. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s) shall stand dismissed. August 18, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.