JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This is a plaintiffs' appeal directed against judgment and decree dated 31-7-1975 recorded by Sri C.B. Jaiswal, learned Civil Judge, Shabjahaupur who allowed Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1974 with costs and reversed the judgment and decree dated 23-7-1974 drawn by Sri M.P. Singh, learned Additional Munsif, Shahjahanpur in original Suit No. 165 of 1974 by which plaintiffs' suit for recovery of possession and cancellation of sale deed dated 21-9-1970 was decreed with costs. 2. Plaintiffs are Chatur Singh, Balvir Singh sons of Balwant Singh and Jasvir Singh son of Jaswant Singh. 3. Defendants are Havaldar Singh, Rameshwar Singh sons of Tika Singh and Badshah Singh son of Jhari Singh. 4. Parties are residents of village, Dilawarpur, Pargana and district Shahjahanpur. 5. Dispute relates of plots nos. 126, 102 and 122 measuring about 9.59 acres situate in village Dilawarpur, Pergana Tahsil and district Shahjahanpur, as detailed at the foot of the plaint. 6. Plaintiffs' case was that Balwant Singh father of plaintiffs 1 and 2, and one Bhuri Singh were own brothers having joint Khata. Chatur Singh, Balvir Singh and Jasvir Singh, plaintiffs-appellants, are descendants of Balwant Singh. Balwant Singh and Bhuri Singh were Christians. Bhuri Singh died in 1950. He left his sole heir Sheo Raj Singh alias Phool Singh who died in 1951. On his death, his share in the Khata was inherited by plaintiffs who were in exclusive possession over that holding. 7. One Bishan Kumar, an imposter, gave himself out as a son of Bhuri Singh who got his name entered in the revenue papers. He also executed the disputed sale deed on 21-9-1970, in favour of defendants 1 and 2. That sale deed was illegal, without consideration and fraudulent. 8. The relief sought was for cancellation of that sale deed and for recovery of possession. 9. Only defendants 1 and 2, the vendees, contested the suit alleging that Bishun Kumar was only son of Bhuri Singh who executed the sale deed in their favour for valuable consideration ; Sheo Raj Singh alias Phool Singh was not the son or Bhuri Singh. 10. It was found by learned trial court that Bhuri Singh left his son Sheo Raj Singh alias Phool Singh and Bishun Kumar is not the son or heir of Bhuri Singh. The sale deed executed in favour of defendants 1 and 2 was void. 10. It was found by learned trial court that Bhuri Singh left his son Sheo Raj Singh alias Phool Singh and Bishun Kumar is not the son or heir of Bhuri Singh. The sale deed executed in favour of defendants 1 and 2 was void. In the result the claim was allowed. 11. Learned lower appellate court considered oral and documentary evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the defence was weighty. Sheo Raj Singh alias Phool Singh was not the son of Bhuri Singh. Bishun Kumar was son and heir of Bhuri Singh and successfully litigated with the plaintiffs in the revenue courts. His name was entered in the Khasra and Khatauni and even in consolidation proceedings, it was held that the disputed land belonged to him and he validly executed the sale deed in favour of respondents. In the result, the appeal was allowed. 12. List has been revised. None appeared on behalf of respondents. 13. I have heard Sri Prabhu Kant, learned Advocate for appellants, and scrutinised the record. 14. On behalf of appellants, it was argued that the judgment of the lower appellate court was perverse entries in the name of Bishun Kumar in revenue papers were not twenty years old and the sale deed was not executed for adequate consideration. Under such circumstances, the appeal should be allowed. 15. It appears that on behalf of plaintiffs, there are statements of P.L. Wilson (P.W.1), Mst. Mariyam (P.W.2), Chatur Singh (P.W.3), Subedar Singh (P.W. 4) and Malkhan Singh (P.W.5). 16. P.W. 1 P.L. Wilson deposed with the help of the register of members of the Church that Sheo Raj Singh alias Phool Singh was son of Bhuri Singh who expired in 1951 as disclosed by entry made in red ink. This entry was not believed by the learned lower appellate court for the simple reason that the name of Sheo Raj Singh alias Phool Singh was not recorded in Khasra or Khatauni after the death of Bhuri Singh. On the other hand, after the death of Bhuri Singh, name of Bishun Kumar had been recorded. 17. Similarly, other P.Ws. were disbelieved by appellate court who found that Mst. Mariyam was not the daughter of Bhuri Singh. It was wrong that Sheo Raj alias Phool Singh died in some accident in Sahabad, district Hardoi. On the other hand, after the death of Bhuri Singh, name of Bishun Kumar had been recorded. 17. Similarly, other P.Ws. were disbelieved by appellate court who found that Mst. Mariyam was not the daughter of Bhuri Singh. It was wrong that Sheo Raj alias Phool Singh died in some accident in Sahabad, district Hardoi. The lower appellate court also disbelieved the statements of Chatur Singh (P.W.3), Subedar Singh (P.W.4) and Malkhan Singh (P.W.5). 18. In defence, there was the statement of Jadunath Singh (D.W.1) who testified that he had seen Bishun Kumar son of Bhuri Singh, resident of village Dilawarpur. Bishun Kumar was one and half year old only at the time of death of Bhuri Singh which took place 20-22 years prior to his deposition on 24-4-1974. He also attested the sale deed copy of which Ext. Ka-1 is on record. He further testified that sale deed was executed by Bishun Kumar in his presence, Bishun Kumar was no longer alive. He further testified about the consideration of the sale/deed out of which Rs. 600/- was paid in cash by defendants 1 and 2 before the Sub-Registrar. 19. Natthu (D.W.2) also testified about Bishun Kumar being the son of Bburi Singh. He denied that Bishun Kumar was also known as Badshah Singh who was impleaded as defendant no. 3 by plaintiffs and could not be personally served by that name. 20. Rameshwar Singh (D.W.3) made a similar statement. He was present at the time of execution of the sate deed in dispute by Bishun Kumar in favour of respondents. 21. Leaving aside the aforesaid oral evidence, there are recitals in sale deed Ext. 1 and statement of Bishun Kumar in case No. 817 of 1970, under Sections 134/137 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R, Act, of the court of Najib Tehsildar. That statement also shows that he was the only son of Bhuri Singh. Defendants also filed Ext. A-1 extract of Khasra of 1378-F; Ext. A-2 extract of Khatuni of 1376-F to 1378-F; Ext. A-3 copy of judgment in case No. 817 of 1970 of Assistant Collector 1st class and Ext. A-4 copy of judgment of appellate court (Additional Commissioner Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly) in Appeal No. 90 of 1971. He found that entries in favour of Bishun Kumar was unchallengeable as finality attaches to the entries recorded during the consolidation operation. A-3 copy of judgment in case No. 817 of 1970 of Assistant Collector 1st class and Ext. A-4 copy of judgment of appellate court (Additional Commissioner Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly) in Appeal No. 90 of 1971. He found that entries in favour of Bishun Kumar was unchallengeable as finality attaches to the entries recorded during the consolidation operation. Under such circumstances, it cannot be held that lower appellate court misread the evidence on record or overlooked any oral evidence or arrived at an improbable finding. That finding of fact is binding on me even if erroneous vide Smt. Safi Devi v. Mahadeo Prasad and others, reported in AIR 1978 Allahabad 215 which posited "Where the first appellate court found a sale deed to be genuine, the finding being a finding of fact, the High Court, in second appeal could not interfere with it even if the same was erroneous." 22. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal, so as to justify my interference. 23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Costs easy.