JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - The writ petition has been directed against the Judgment of Sri P. C. Saxena, I. A. S. Member Board of Revenue dated 25-1-1978 in Second Appeal No. 252 (Z) of 1973-74/ Agra, Biri Singh v. Smt. Gulkundi. 2. Necessary facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that Biri Singh and others applied for acquisition of bhumidhari sanad in the name of Smt. Harmeji on 10-4-72 and on that very day they got a sale deed executed by her in their favour. After five months the petitioner applied for cancellation of bhumidhari sanad on the allegations that Smt. Harmeji was blind, deaf, disabled and also of unsound mind. It was alleged that fraud had been practised upon her in getting the bhumidhari sanad in her name and in getting the sale deed executed by her, hence it was prayed that the sanad issued on 18-4-72 in the name of Smt. Harmeji be cancelled. It was also suggested that the aforesaid Smt. Harmeji had died on 13-4-72, hence the sanad could not be issued in her name on 18-4-1972. 3. The contesting opposite parties in the present writ petition had objected to the application of the present petitioner with the allegations that Smt. Harmeji had of her own free will applied for the sanad and also deposited the money and the sanad was correctly issued in her name on 18-4-1972. It was suggested that she died on 20-4-1972. The petitioner applied for cancellation of sanad on wrong allegations and with a view to harm the vendees. 4. The trial court and the first appellate court have given judgments for the petitioner whereas in second appeal the petitioner's claim has been negatived. Aggrieved by the judgment of the second appellate court the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the second appellate court has patently erred in repelling the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. According to him the requisite money was not deposited by the tenure-holder, hence the sanad could not be issued in favour of the tenure-holder. The second appellate court has patently erred in giving judgment for the contesting opposite parties. 6. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, and I have gone through the impugned judgment. 7. According to him the requisite money was not deposited by the tenure-holder, hence the sanad could not be issued in favour of the tenure-holder. The second appellate court has patently erred in giving judgment for the contesting opposite parties. 6. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, and I have gone through the impugned judgment. 7. In my opinion the second appellate court has not taken perverse view on the evidence in the present case. The first two courts had cancelled the sanad on the ground that the requisite money was not deposited by the aforesaid Smt. Harmeji and that Smt. Hermeji had died on 13-4-1972, whereas the second appellate Court has arrived at a conclusion that Smt. Harmeji had died on 28-4-1972. It has also come to the conclusion that the allegations on behalf of the petitioner that Smt. Harmeji not applied for the sanad was incorrect in view of the fact that a sale deed had been executed by Smt. Harmeji in favour of the contesting opposite parties on 10-4-1972. It appears that the petitioner applied for cancellation of the sanad after and lapse of five months with some ulterior motive to get the sale deed in favour of the contesting opposite parties nullified. 8. It is a matter of common experience that in this State a sirdar deposits money for acquisition of bhumidhari sanad and sells the property on the same day and thereafter tries to avoid the sale deed on technical ground. To my mind the present case appears of that kind, hence there is no equity in favour of the petitioner. 9. In my opinion, the views expressed by the first two courts on one band and the view expressed by the second appellate court on the other are possible views. Therefore, it is not a fit case where interference should be made with the impugned judgment of the second appellate court. 10. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. As no one has appeared on behalf of the contesting opposite parties, there would be no order as to costs.