JUDGMENT R.R. Rostogi, J. - This is plaintiffs' second appeal, arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for cancellation of a sale deed, dated 24-1-1968, executed by defendant-respondent No. 4, Ram Saran, in favour of defendant-respondent No. 1, Ram Adharey. The sale deed was in respect of some agricultural land of which Ram Saran and his brothers, Jamuna Prasad and Ram Kuber, defendants-respondents 2 and 3 were Bhumidhars, the shares of each one of them being ?rd. The plaintiffs-appellants are the sons of Ram Saran. The case of the appellants was that their father, Ram Saran, was an insane person and had not been heard of for about 7 years prior to the filing of the suit and thus it will amount to his civil death and the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be in actual possession of ?rd share of the disputed plots. It was alleged that the defendant No. 1 obtained a fictitious sale deed in his favour from Ram Saran in respect of his ?rd share in the disputed plots, that the sale deed dated 24-1-68 did not bear the signature of Ram Saran and that it was without any consideration and hence was illegal. The plaintiffs hence filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed. In the alternative they prayed for recovery of possession as well. 2. The defendant-respondent No. 1 Ram Adharey contested the suit and denied that Ram Saran was an instance person or he had not been heard of for more than seven years at the time of filing of the suit. It was averred that Ram Saran was alive and that he voluntarily executed the sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 2000/-. It was claimed that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid in advance and the remaining amount of Rs. 1000/- was paid at the time of execution, and since the execution of the sale deed the defendant is in possession over the disputed plots. Other defendants did not contest the suit and it proceed ex parte against them. 3. The trial court framed the relevant issues. The disputed signature of Ram Saran on the sale deed was referred by both the parties for comparison by Finger-print & hand writing experts with his admitted signature existing on a statement given by him in a mutation case. Ram Narain v. Smt. Shivraji. 3. The trial court framed the relevant issues. The disputed signature of Ram Saran on the sale deed was referred by both the parties for comparison by Finger-print & hand writing experts with his admitted signature existing on a statement given by him in a mutation case. Ram Narain v. Smt. Shivraji. The plaintiffs' expert gave the opinion in their favour while the defendants' expert gave the opinion in their favour. Apart from that, other evidence was given by both the parties and the trial court held that Ram Saran was not an instance person but he had not been heard of for more than seven years before the filing of the suit and therefore, it would be taken that his civil death had taken place. Further, the trial court, believing the testimony of the plaintiffs' expert and the other evidence, held to at the impugned sale deed was a fictitious transaction and thus decreed the suit for its cancellation. Aggrieved the defendant No. I filed an appeal which has been decided by the 1st Temporary Civil & Sessions Judge, Basti by his judgment and order dated 24-4-1973. The learned Judge has, agreeing with the trial court, held that the plaintiffs' contention that Ram Saran was an insane person was not correct. He, however, did not agree with the trial court on the question as to whether Ram Saran was civilly dead and held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that Ram Saran had not been heard of for more than seven years at the time of the alleged execution of the sale deed. For this finding apart from oral evidence the lower appellate court has relied upon the voters' list of 1964 in which Ram Saran's name was recorded as a voter and then on a sale deed dated 25-5-1964 by which the plots in dispute were purchased by Ram Saran and his two brothers. In pursuance of that sale deed their names were mutated in the revenue papers. On the question as to whether or not the disputed sale deed was a fictitious transaction, the lower appellate court has again disagreed with the trial court and from the oral evidence of the parties has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that this sale deed had not been executed by their father. On the question as to whether or not the disputed sale deed was a fictitious transaction, the lower appellate court has again disagreed with the trial court and from the oral evidence of the parties has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that this sale deed had not been executed by their father. It has also referred to the experts evidence and after discussing the same has come to the conclusion that the disputed sale deed bore the signature of Ram Saran. It has, further, held that the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the suit. On these findings the appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court has been set aside. 4. The first submission made before me on behalf of the plaintiffs appellants was that since the decision of the case depended upon the credibility of the witnesses, the assessment of their evidence has made by the trial court should not have been reversed by the appellate court because it could not be shown that there was any clear proof of error in such assessment. Reliance has been placed in this behalf on W.C. Macdonaled v. Fred Latimer, AIR 1929 Privy Council 15 and T.D. Gopalan v. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, AIR 1972 SC 1716 . In Macdonaled's case it was observed by the Privy Council:- "No one doubts that where an appeal on fact lies, it is within the jurisdiction of an appellate court to reverse a finding of fact; but it is well established that such a course is only to be adopted upon very clear proof of error where the case depends upon the credibility of witnesses whom the trial Judge has seen and believed." In T.D. Gopalan's case also their Lordships of the Supreme Court had the occasion to observe that "the uniform practise in the matter of appreciation of evidence has been that if the trial court has given cogent and detailed reasons for not accepting the testimony of a witness, the appellate court in all fairness to it ought to deal with those reasons before proceeding to form a contrary opinion about accepting the testimony which has been rejected by the trial court". Therefore what comes out is that where an appeal lies on facts, an appellate court is certainly competent to reappraise the evidence and substitute its own findings. However, in doing so it must keep in view that if the case depends upon the credibility of the witnesses alone, then the assessment of the worth of that evidence as made by the trial judge should not he lightly disturbed unless there is clear proof of error in that assessment. 5. In the present case the plaintiffs-appellants who are sons of Ram Saran challenged the validity of the sale deed executed by Ram Saran on the following grounds :- That Ram Saran was insane person; that Ram Saran had not been heard of for more than 7 years when the suit was filed, that the sale deed did not bear the signature of Ram Saran and that it was without consideration. The sale deed is alleged to have been executed on 24-1-1968 and the suit for cancellation was filed in 1968 itself, shortly after its execution. Thus, the main plank in the attack of the appellants was that Ram Saran was an insane person and at the time of the execution of the disputed sale deed he had not been heard of for more than seven years, that is he was civilly dead meaning thereby that he could not have been present at the time of the execution of the sale deed. 6. So far as the question as to whether Ram Saran was insane is concerned, the trial court as also the appellate court recorded a concurrent finding that it was not so. On the question that he was not heard of for more than seven years the trial court did record a finding in favour of the plaintiffs but the appellate court has come to a contrary conclusion. I need hardly mention that the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses on this point as made by the trial court suffered from a grave error, inasmuch as the very sale deed on the basis of which the disputed plots were purchased by Ram Saran and in respect of which the suit was filed, had been purchased in 1964. I need hardly mention that the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses on this point as made by the trial court suffered from a grave error, inasmuch as the very sale deed on the basis of which the disputed plots were purchased by Ram Saran and in respect of which the suit was filed, had been purchased in 1964. If the period since when Ram Saran was not heard of as stated by the plaintiffs was to be accepted then that sale deed also could not have been obtained by Ram Saran. Unfortunately that sale deed and the fact of mutation made in revenue papers were totally ignored by it. Thus a very important and relevant aspect was ignored while recording this finding. I do not think that any fault can be found with the approach of the appellate court in recording a contrary finding on this part of the case. 7. Then comes the question of execution of the sale deed and the passing of the consideration. On a consideration of the oral evidence the appellate court recorded a different finding. It also took a different view in regard to the experts evidence. The question arises as to whether the appellate court could have reappraised this evidence and if in doing so it has taken a contrary view, has it overstepped its jurisdiction. In need hardly mention that the assessment of oral evidence is to be with reference to the totality of the circumstance of the case and not with reference to one particular circumstances. When in respect of two of the important circumstances alleged by the plaintiff, the testimony of their witnesses was found to be incredible, then certainly in respect of other circumstances i.e. the execution of the sale deed and the passing of the consideration, their evidence was to be looked upon with some amount of care and caution. This being the position, in my opinion the appellate court did not overstep its jurisdiction in recording a different finding on these aspects of the case as well. Since the findings recorded by the lower appellate court are pure findings of fact based on the evidence and circumstances of the case, they cannot be interfered in second appeal. 8. The appeal hence fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. M.L. in this court