legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. It is evident, from the judgement of the first Appellate Court, that it was established, that Shanti Devi, had appeared, in the Court, and made a statement dated 03.03.1992. She was identified by her Counsel Ajay Panwar. On the basis of her statement, the judgement and decree, were passed. No fraud or misrepresentation allegedly played by defendant No. 1 (deceased) upon Shanti Devi, was established by leading evidence. The allegation of fraud, whether made in civil or criminal proceedings, must be established, beyond a reasonable doubt. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Dalip Singh Vs. Kali Ram, 1988, SLJ, 255 (P&H) . The Courts below, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the decree, did not create right, for the first time, but defendant No. 1, had pre-existing right, in the property, in question, on the basis of family settlement, which took place, between him, and the plaintiff/appellant. Thus, the decree, only recognized the preexisting rights of defendant No. 1 (now deceased), which had already been created, in him, on the basis of the family settlement. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Ved Pal @ Vedu Vs. Smt. Raj Rani, 2003(1) PLR, 455 . The first Appellate Court, was also right, in holding that, the suit, was barred by time. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, on the aforesaid points, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer, from any illegality or perversity, and, therefore, warrant no interference, by this Court. The judgements and decrees of the Courts below, are, thus, liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must
