JUDGMENT SURINDER SARUP, J.—This second appeal arises out of the concurrent judgments and decrees of Shri Jasbir S.Dhaliwal, District Judge, Sirmaur District, Nahan dated 22-8-1991 and Shri Rajan Gupta, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Kandaghat Camp at Rajgarh dated 25-5-1990 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from causing any act of waste, damage, cutting trees from the suit land and alienating the best piece of joint land or land in excess of their share, as per the description of the same given in the plaint as well as in Para 1 of the impugned judgment of the learned lower appellate Court. 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming that he was owner in possesion of the suit land that one Janki Devi, widow of Shri Nathu had gifted her share in the suit property through a registered gift deed dated 27-10-1985, which was accepted by him and mutation of ownership had been sanctioned in his favour. It was further pleaded that the defendants-respondents had no right to alienate his share in the joint land or some parts and that the defendants had brought a contractor on 20-11-1987 for removal of the trees standing on the joint land which gave him a cause of action and that he would suffer irreparable loss if the defendants succeeded in their design. 4. The defendants No. 3 to 6 filed a joint written statement, while defendant No.1 and minor defendants No. 14 and 15 filed separate written statement. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the suit land, no gift deed had been executed by Janki Devi in his favour and that if a gift deed had been executed that might be the result of fraud and undue influence, and was not done with a free mind of deceased Janki Devi as she was seriously ill in the last week of February 1985. They claimed that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit. 5. After the plaintiff having reiterated his cause in his replication, the trial Court framed the following issues: "(1) Whether the plaintiff and defendants are joint owners in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP. They claimed that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit. 5. After the plaintiff having reiterated his cause in his replication, the trial Court framed the following issues: "(1) Whether the plaintiff and defendants are joint owners in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP. (2) Whether the gift deed, dated 27-2-1985, executed by Smt. Janki Devi deceased as a result of fraud and undue influence hence illegal, void and not binding on the defendants as alleged? OPD. (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP. (4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit? OPD. (5) Relief." 6. Under issues No.1 and 2, it was found by the trial Court that the plaintiff and the defendants are joint owners in possession of the suit land as claimed by the plaintiff and that Smt. Janki Devi had executed a gift deed dated 27-2-1985 and that it was not as a result of fraud and undue influence as such it was not illegal or void. 7. Under issue No.3, the plaintiff was held entitled to the injunction prayed for Under issue No.4, the finding returned was against the defendants. On the basis of these findings, the suit was decreed. 8. The appeal by the defendants-appellants having been dismissed by the lower appellate Court has given rise to this second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 9. Shri Kuldip Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant has very lucidly argued that findings of both the Courts below, more so, in case of the learned lower appellate Court, is based on a mis-reading and misconstruction of the crucial document Ex. D-2, i.e. the alleged gift deed on record. In this connection, he has taken me through the oral evidence on record and has read the statement of the witnesses. On a careful consideration of these statements as well as the evidence on record, I do not find any force in this argument, indeed, the finding of the lower appellate Court is based on appreciation of evidence and no part thereof had been mis-read, etc. by him so as to vitiate his finding. On a careful consideration of these statements as well as the evidence on record, I do not find any force in this argument, indeed, the finding of the lower appellate Court is based on appreciation of evidence and no part thereof had been mis-read, etc. by him so as to vitiate his finding. He had considered the statement of the propounder, i.e., the plaintiff Rama Nand as a witness in support of his own case, i.e. PW-1 wherein it has been mentioned that Janki Devi donor was his aunt (Chachi) and that he used to look after her He has also stated that they used to live together 10. In the gift deed Ex. D-2, there is a recital that the appellant Rama Nand used to look after all the properties of Smt. Janks Devi and she wanted to make a gift of her land in his favour The learned lower appellate Court had found that this fact had been corroborated by the evidence of the defendant-appellant. In this connection, he had referred to the statement of DW-1 Sat Pal, who has stated that Rama Nand used to come to the house of Janki Devi and that it was Rama Nand who brought said Janki Devi to the Hospital when she was ill. In his statement, it has been clearly establised that the gift was made by Smt. Janki Devi in favour of Rama Nand, i.e., the plaintiff. 11. DW-2 Lachhi Ram is the marginal witness of the gift deed. According to him Ex. D-2 was written and got registered by Smt. Janki Devi while she was being taken by him and Beli Ram on the day when she was ill, as she had expressed her desire for doing so when they had just started from Rohru Ghati. According to this witness, Smt. Janki Devi brought him to the Tehsil along with her. The Sub-Registrar (Tehsildar) had made enquiries from her about the gift deed being made and she had admitted the same to be correct and only after that it was attested by the Tehsildar. This witness further stated that the mental condition of Janki Devi was absolutely right and that Rama Nand had not said anything to the donor 12. In view of the above evidence on record, there is no doubt about the execution of the gift and registration thereof. This witness further stated that the mental condition of Janki Devi was absolutely right and that Rama Nand had not said anything to the donor 12. In view of the above evidence on record, there is no doubt about the execution of the gift and registration thereof. As rightly held by the learned lower appellate Court that in view of the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar, a presumption that the gift deed was duly executed by the executant in a sound disposing mind would arise, unless the same is rebutted. As also further rightly held by him, there is no evidence to rebut this presumption. 13. Although it was pleaded that the gift deed was as a result of fraud, undue influence, etc. no evidence has been led to prove such pleadings. 14. Faced with the above situation, Shri Kuldip Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the execution of the gift deed and its registration thereto has not been proved in the present case. According to him, the date given in the gift deed is 18.2.1985 whereas it was registered on 27.2.1985. In support of this argument, he has taken recourse to the statement of his own witness DW-2 Lachhi Ram. According to him, the gift was executed and registered on the same date when Smt. Jamna Devi was being taken to the Hospital as per her desire and wish and since the date of registration is given as 27.2.1985, the execution of the gift deed is not proved as it bears the date of execution as 18.2.1985. Even if this submission of Shri Kuldip Singh is accepted and the testimony of his own witness DW-2 is excluded from consideration, the fact remains that there is the statement of plaintiff PW-1 about the execution of the gift deed in his favour and the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar, and in absence of any evidence to the contrary, carries a legal presumption in favour of the valid execution of the gift deed by the donor in a sound disposing mind. The discrepancy in the two dates, i.e., the one mentioned in the gift deed and the date of registration of the same is of no consequence in the above circumstances. 15. The discrepancy in the two dates, i.e., the one mentioned in the gift deed and the date of registration of the same is of no consequence in the above circumstances. 15. In fairness to Shri Kuldip Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, he has cited a number of rulings in support of his contention that the execution of the gift deed in the facts and circumstances of the case is neither established in fact nor is it according to law. They are, Mulla Zawar Hussain v. Smt. Mano Bai and others, 1956 Bhopal 66. It has been held therein that in cases where there can be actual delivery of possession such an assertion in the gift deed can prove the consent of the donees but where there is no transfer of physical possession, a recital in the gift deed cannot prove the consent of one of the donees specially when the gift is clearly against his interest On the facts of that case, it was found that the donor had gifted the whole of the property, not only his share, and gave half share to his wife and the remaining half share to his son. Thus, his son did not at all gain by the gift and in such circumstances the execution of the gift deed in his favour cannot prove the knowledge or consent of the done. From this extracted portion of the report, Shri Kuldip Singh sought to argue on the facts of the present case that the gift deed had not been validly executed. I find no force in this argument as both the cases are distinguishable on facts 16. He has then cited N. Ramaswamy Padayachi v. C. Ramaswamy Padayachi and others, AIR 1975 Mad 88. It has been held therein as follows: "Where a gift deed duly signed by the donor is attested by two witnesses but it is not proved that each of the attesting witnesses saw the other attesting in his presence, the evidence of one of the attesting witnesses is not sufficient to prove the execution of the gift deed. It has been held therein as follows: "Where a gift deed duly signed by the donor is attested by two witnesses but it is not proved that each of the attesting witnesses saw the other attesting in his presence, the evidence of one of the attesting witnesses is not sufficient to prove the execution of the gift deed. Though Section 68 of the Evidence Act which does not require both the attesting witnesses to be examined for proving execution of the deed, does not absolve the party relying on a document, when the execution is denied, to prove that each of the witnesses had seen the executant sign or affix his marks or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgement of the signature or mark." 17. This ruling would not apply in the present case on the short ground that the marginal witness, i.e. Lachhi Ram has been examined by the defendant-appellant. Stretching the argument to its utmost limit, even if his statement is left out of consideration as already mentioned above, the execution of the gift deed is proved by the statement of the plaintiff, i.e. the propounder and the presumption in view of the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar while attesting the same, which has not been rebutted by any evidence, whatsoever, in the present case. 18. He has also relied on the case reported as N. Sreedhara Pal and others v. Damodara Naiken Siva Naiken, 1980(2) ILR Ker 40, which is again distinguishable on facts. Similar is the case Brundahan Misra v. Iswar Swain and others, AIR 1983 Orissa 172. 19. Shri Kuldip Singh has relied on two recent judgments of the Apex Court for his argument that on the facts and circumstances of the present case, a substantial question of law is made out calling for interference of this court in second appeal inasmuch as the Courts below have not considered the evidence, including the documentary evidence, more particularly the alleged gift deed Ex.D-2 in proper prespective and effect of the same on the rights of the parties. For this proposition, he has cited Kochukakkada Aboobacker and others v Attahkasim and others, (1996) 7 SCC 389. For this proposition, he has cited Kochukakkada Aboobacker and others v Attahkasim and others, (1996) 7 SCC 389. No doubt, as held by the Apex Court, the powers of the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not fettered where such a situation exists as mentioned in the judgment of the Apex Court but in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as brought out from the evidence on record and as discussed above, it cannot be said that the Courts below have not considered the evidence, including the gift deed Ex.D-2 in a proper perspective and the effect of the same on the rights of the parties, 20. in the case reported as D.S. Thimmappa v. Siddaramakka, (1996) 8 SCC 365, it has been laid down therein that interference with findings of fact in second appeal, where first appellate Court failed to draw proper inference from proved facts and to apply law in proper prespective, such a case would not amount to appreciation of evidence and High Courts interference would be proper. This ruling is also distinguishable as the first appellate Court has drawn proper inference from the proved facts and has correctly applied the law. 21. No other point has been urged. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. However, in view of the contentions issues involved, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.