JUDGMENT N. N. Sharma, J. - This appeal is directed aginist the judgment and decree dated 18-2-1974 by Sri M. Lal, Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad, who dismissed with costs the appellants civil appeal No. 159 of 1972, by which decree and judgment dated 17-4-1972 of Munsif Amroha in Original suit, No. 33 of 1967, were affirmed. 2. The dispute relates to plot 93, measuring 1.44 acres situated in village Karanpur, Pargana Amroha, district Moradabad. Smt. Guddo, wife of Ashfaq Hussain executed a sale deed on 23-2-1965 about the holding in dispute in favour of respondents sons of Chhidda after obtaining Bhumidhari rights for a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. 3. The suit was filed in the name of Smt. Guddo by Altaf Hussain as next friend of Smt. Guddo for cancellation of the sale deed. 4. The sale deed was attacked on two grounds: - (1) It was averred that Smt. Guddo was aged 95 years and was mentally unsound at the time of its execution. Chhidda used to work as her employee and fraudulently procured the sale deed from this old, illiterate and insane lady who did not know as to what she was about. 5. Smt. Guddo died pending the suit and appellants Altaf Hussain etc. were substituted in her place as her legal representatives being sons of brothers of husband of Smt. Guddo. 6. The defendants resisted the claim on the ground that Smt. Guddo was not insane; she was capable of understanding her affairs and willingly executed the sale deed. After independent advice from Zafrul Islam her close relative, all the allegations coined in the plaint were simply purposive; the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 7. Learned Munsif found that Smt. Guddo was neither a Pardahnasheen lady nor she was insane; Chhidda was not her employee nor procured the execution of the sale deed through any deceit. The appeal preferred by appellants failed as given above. 8. I have heard Shri M. A. Qadeer, advocate for appellants and Sri B. Dixit, advocate for respondents. 9. 7. Learned Munsif found that Smt. Guddo was neither a Pardahnasheen lady nor she was insane; Chhidda was not her employee nor procured the execution of the sale deed through any deceit. The appeal preferred by appellants failed as given above. 8. I have heard Shri M. A. Qadeer, advocate for appellants and Sri B. Dixit, advocate for respondents. 9. On behalf of the appellants it was pointed out that according to the findings of the learned trial Court Smt. Guddo was old and illiterate and even though she might not have been a Pardahnasheen lady yet some protection which was extended to a Pardahnasheen lady was equally available to an illiterate and ignorant woman though she might not have been a pardahnansheen lady as was held in Parasnath Rai v. Tileshra Kuar, (1965 All L J 1080). It appears that in that case the suit was brought by plaintiff Smt. Tileshara Kuar herself for cancellation of a gift deed dated 24th June, 1955. She was old and hard of hearing amenable to influence of vendees. The present suit was not filed by Smt. Guddo who died after about two years of the execution of the sale deed. Under such circumstances the aforesaid ruling is distinguishable. 10. Moreover an objection paper 20-C, Ext. A1 was referred in mutation proceedings by appellants who did not dispute the execution of the sale deed by Smt. Guddo in favour of the respondents but disputed the right of Smt. Guddo to execute the sale deed of the disputed holding. Both the courts below have referred to the inconsistency in the case of he appellants as laid in that objection and he plaint which was filed in the name of Smt. Guddo. Both the Courts below found that Smt. Guddo was neither unsound nor victim of any deception by Chhidda nor Chhidda was servant of Smt. Guddo. They believed the recitals in the registered sale deed which showed that Smt. Guddo executed this sale deed and was identified by her close relative and her age was given as 75 years at that time. She was identified by Zafarul Islam her nephew. Chhidda was neither the scribe nor the marginal witness of the aforesaid sale deed. They believed the recitals in the registered sale deed which showed that Smt. Guddo executed this sale deed and was identified by her close relative and her age was given as 75 years at that time. She was identified by Zafarul Islam her nephew. Chhidda was neither the scribe nor the marginal witness of the aforesaid sale deed. They believed the testimony of Sri Nafees Ahmed who testified that the sale deed was read over and explained to Smt. Guddo who had the capacity to understand the terms of the sale deed and who willingly executed the sale deed after understanding its terms. It was her intelligent act. P.Ws. Altaf Ahmad and Mohd. Yamain were heirs. They were not present at the time of execution of sale deed. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants argued before me that the burden of proof which lay on the respondents has not been discharged in this case. The scribe and marginal witnesses have not been examined and respondents who wanted to prove the sale deed had to establish its due execution as was laid in Mst. Kharbuja Kuar v. Jangbahadur Rai, ( AIR 1963 SC 1203 ). A careful perusal of the said authority shall go to disclose that it was not open to High Court in second appeal to disturb the concurrent findings of fact relating to the execution of the document by the executant. It was observed at page 1205 : - "(5) It is settled law that a High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact " It has been shown above that the present suit has not been filed by Smt. Guddo. It has been filed simply in her name by appellants who were not party to impugned sale deed nor heirs of Smt. Guddo under Sections 171, 172 and 174, U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Act No. 1 of 1951) and who want an equitable remedy, i.e. cancellation of the sale deed. Under these circumstances even though Smt. Guddo might have been illiterate and old lady yet it is not open to me to disturb the concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below which are sustainable on evidence and circumstances of the case as given above. Under these circumstances even though Smt. Guddo might have been illiterate and old lady yet it is not open to me to disturb the concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below which are sustainable on evidence and circumstances of the case as given above. The evidence on record does not substantiate allegations of appellants and soi the appeal fails as devoid of force. 12. No other point was argued before me. 13. In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs. The impugned judgment and decree are affirmed.