P. K. MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 are the appellants against the confirming judgments, in a suit for possession and permanent injunction. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration of their title, confirmation of possession and for injunction in respect of homestead plot No. 2255 and a portion of plot No 2256 from the west measuring an area of Ac 0. 03 decimals in mouza nuagarh. The total extent of plot No. 2255 is ac 0. 10 decs, which is situated to the west of plot No. 2256 with an area of Ac. 0 09 decs, plot No. 2255 originally belonged to one ananta Lenka and plot No. 2256 belonged to mohan, Bhagi and Bahudi. Jagu and Raghu were the sons of Ananta. After Jagu's death on 10-6-1964 his sons along with Raghu executed a sale deed in respect of plot No. 2255 in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and late father of defendants 1 and 2 under Ext. A. This sale deed (Ext. A) however, was cancelled on 16. 7. 1964 and on the very day, the vendors executed another sale deed in respect of those properties in favour of defendant No. 3 dhobani Bewa. On the same day, the heirs of mohan Lenka executed a registered sale deed in respect of western portion of Ac. 0. 03 decimals of plot No. 2256 in favour of Dhobani (defendant No. 3) The eastern portion of Ac. 0. 06 decs of plot No. 2256 was sold to one chinta Parida, who also sold it to the late father of the defendants in the year 1941. Defendant No. 3 purchased Ac. 0. 03 decimals from plot No. 2256. Thus, it is claimed that she remained in possession over Ac. 0. 13 decimals covered under one compact plot. She however, sold Ac. 0. 13 decimals under both the plots to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 on 20-8-1976 for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- and put them in possession. Defendants 1 and 2 being the adjoining owners had always interfered with the possession of plaintiffs 1 and 2 whenever they intended to put new structure. She however, sold Ac. 0. 13 decimals under both the plots to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 on 20-8-1976 for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- and put them in possession. Defendants 1 and 2 being the adjoining owners had always interfered with the possession of plaintiffs 1 and 2 whenever they intended to put new structure. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a common written statement refuting the claim of the plaintiffs, whereas defendant No 3 filed a separate written statement supporting the plaintiffs' case after her (defendant No. 3's) death, her heirs did not file any separate written statement nor contested the suit. Defendants 1 and 2 while controverting the allegations in the plaint, inter alia, pleaded that their late father along with plaintiffs 1 and 2 purchased the lands covered under plot No. 2256 on 20-6-1964. and since then they have been in possession alongwith the plaintiffs and the sons. So far as the cancellation of the deed was concerned, it was never given freely and it was obtained by misrepresentation. The sale deed in favour of defendant No. 3 was not acted upon nor she possessed plot No. 2255 in pursuance of the sale deed. Though their late father purchased ac. 0. 06 decimals from plot No. 2256 in the year 1941, they had been in possession of ac. 0. 09 decimals openly, continuously the hostile to the knowledge of all including defendant No. 3 and her vendors. It was therefore claimed that the sale deed executed by defendantno. 3 in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 was without consideration and not acted upon and since defendants 1 and 2 are in possession of Ac 0. 03 decs, from plot No. 2256 and in joint possession of plot No. 2255, there was no necessity to create any disturbance. The defendants took a plea that the suit was barred by limitation. ( 3 ) THE trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record, come to hold that the plaintiffs' vendors had acquired title in respect of plot No. 2256 by adverse possession and thus, was competent to alienate it in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and in turn the sale deed in respect of plot No 2255 was valid and therefore title passed to the plaintiffs 1 and 2. It is further held that defendants 1 and 2 did not acquire any interest in respect of Ac. It is further held that defendants 1 and 2 did not acquire any interest in respect of Ac. 0 03 decs, of land from plot No. 2256 which defendant no. 3 had purchased and that was rightly conveyed to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff's suit was decreed. Defendants 1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the learned Second Additional district Judge challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Sub-Judge. The learned lower appellate Court held that ext. A having been cancelled, no right accrued in favour of the defendants-appellants, father or the defendants inasmuch as Ext. A having been produced by defendants 1 and 2, it cannot be said that they had no knowledge about cancellation. The plaintiffs who had filed the cancellation deed marked Ext 2 was admitted into evidence without objection and therefore, the plea that the consent was obtained in the deed of cancellation by misrepresentation was negatived. The appellate Court held that by virtue of the sale deed dated 16. 7. 1964 under ext. 4 defendant No. 3 derived title inasmuch as she otherwise had acquired title by adverse possession, having remained in possession for a period of more than 12 years from the date of her purchase till she sold the properties to the plaintiffs on 3-11-1976. Thus, it was held that defendant No 3 had valid right to sell the property in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintifs' title in respect of Ac 0. 03 decimals of land from plot No. 2256 was upheld. On the question of adverse possession also, the appellate court affirmed the decision Thus, the appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit. ( 4 ) MR Y. S. N. Murty, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellate contended that ext. A was admittedly a valid and registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and father of defendants 1 and 2 Such a sale deed cannot be cancelled unilaterally by the vendors and it is immaterial whether the vendors have the knowledge of the same and therefore, the learned Court below erroneously held that cancellation was permissible by agreement Mere marking a certified copy as an exhibit would not make the contents of such document proved. The original of such deed having not been produced, question of cancellation could not have been accepted. The original of such deed having not been produced, question of cancellation could not have been accepted. It is further contended that Ext 2, if not accepted as valid in the eye of law, then the sale deed (Ext. A) continues to hold the field in which event the execution of ext 4 was illegal and defendant No. 3 would not acquire any title and therefore could not have conveyed any title under Ext. 5 dated 20. 8. 1976 in favour of the plaintiffs. It is the submission that there being no pleading or any issue framed regarding acquisition of title by adverse possession by defendant No. 3, mere possession for 12 years and two months by defendant No. 3 would not make such possession adverse. The elements and ingredients of adverse possession have to be proved and established before a finding of adverse possession can be recorded Thus, it is contended that defendant No. 3 not having acquired valid title either under Ext. 4 or by adverse possession, could not have any title as on 20-8-1976 on which date she executed Ext. 5. ( 5 ) MR. B. Pal, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the acquisition of title by defendant no. 3 whether by way of adverse possession or through Ext. 4 has been duly proved and such finding of possession in favour of defendant No. 3 being on the basis of overwhelming documentary and oral evidence on record and such being a finding of facts recorded by both the Courts below, the High Court should not disturb such a finding in second appeal specially when such a finding do not suffer from any legal infirmity. It was the further contention that the documentary evidence Exts 10 and 11 have to prevail over Exts. C and C/1 in so far as possession of both the suit plots in concerned. In any way, it is submitted by Shri pal that the second appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs since no legal infirmity has been brought to the notice of the Court to interfere with the finding of facts recorded by the Courts below. ( 6 ) THE learned trial Court on consideration of the deed of cancellation Ext. In any way, it is submitted by Shri pal that the second appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs since no legal infirmity has been brought to the notice of the Court to interfere with the finding of facts recorded by the Courts below. ( 6 ) THE learned trial Court on consideration of the deed of cancellation Ext. 2 found that it contains consent of defendants 1 and 2's father and the evidence did not indicate that the consent to obtained was by undue influence or coercion. The learned trial Court further found that the defendants could not lead any evidence to the effect if the consent was vitiated on account of misrepresentation, but, however, it was held that the very consent in a deed of cancellation of a person cannot relinquish a title derived by him in respect of an occupancy holding and any relinquishment can be done only by a registered deed of reconveyance. Ext. 2 having not satisfied the legal requirements, according to the learned trial Court, it was held that defendant No. 3 did not derive any title under Ext. 4 dated 16-7-64. However, the learned trial Court found that despite non-acquisition of title under Ext. 4 by defendant No. 3, defendant No. 3 having been in possession since 16-7-64 in respect of the entire plot No. 2255 peacefully, openly and adverse to the interest of the true owner and vendors of defendant No. 3, she acquired title by way of adverse possession in respect of the suit plot No. 2255. The trial Court took note of the written statement of defendant No. 3 under Ext. 8 and the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and absence of any evidence adduced by the defendants. The positive assertion of defendant No. 3 was that she continued in possession of the plot since execution of Ext. 4 dated 16-7-64 and that was substantiated by the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and has prescriptive title by way of adverse possession for more than 12 years, the sale made in favour of the plaintiff was held to be valid and the plaintiffs were held to have acquired valid title in respect of the said plot. ( 7 ) SO far as plot No. 2256 comprising of an area of Ac. 0. ( 7 ) SO far as plot No. 2256 comprising of an area of Ac. 0. 03 decimals towards western is concerned, the trial Court found on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence that defendant No. 3 has been in possession of the entire plot No. 2255 and part of Ac. 0. 03 of plot No. 2256 and the defendants were not able to prove their case. So far as parcha Exts. C. and C/1 as well as the evidence laid by the defendants were not accepted on cogent reasons. The defendant's plea of adverse possession under issue No. 7 was rejected and consequently issue Nos 7 and 8 were found in favour of the plaintiff and the suit has been decreed. The learned trial Court found that the sale deed Ext. 9 contained from defendants 4 and 5 by defendants 1 and 2 could not be proved inasmuch as the certified copy of the sale deed Ext. 9 filed at the time of argument was not valid and the execution thereof was not proved. The appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court excepting the finding with regard to the title of defendant No. 3 on the basis of Ext.-4. It has been held that the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 3 under ext-4 did not convey title in her favour in view of the deed of cancellation Ext. 2 which was registered and the endorsement of cancellation was made in Ext. A by the Sub-Registrar himself. The lower appellate Court has held that by virtue of Ext. A and the deed of cancellation Ext. 2, the property remained with the original owner which was validly transfered in favour of defendant No 3. The finding of possession in favour of defendant No. 3 was confirmed on proper discussion of both documentary and oral evidence on record inasmuch as the appellate Court found that the defendants/ appellant could not prove acquisition of right by adverse possession from 1941 in respect of part plot No. 2256. Thus, the appellate court rightly confirmed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. ( 8 ) LAW is well settled that the finding of facts based on proper appreciation of evidence is not to be interfered with in a second appeal. The High Court should not entertain a second appeal on finding of facts even if it was erroneous. Thus, the appellate court rightly confirmed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. ( 8 ) LAW is well settled that the finding of facts based on proper appreciation of evidence is not to be interfered with in a second appeal. The High Court should not entertain a second appeal on finding of facts even if it was erroneous. The High Court is also not to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion over the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below on proper appreciation of evidence on record. The finding of facts recorded by the lower Courts can only be interfered with if such findings are based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence. Reference may be made to the case of The State of U. P. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi. In view of the settled position of law, there cannot be any manner of doubt that in a second appeal this Court would not interfere with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the learned Courts below. The only question of law that has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is as to whether the finding of the lower appellate Court with regard to the deed of cancellation of Ext. 2 and in consequence execution of Ext. 4, is legal, needs to be considered. It is the contention that admittedly Ext. A is a valid registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, and father of defendants 1 and 2 and such a sale deed cannot be cancelled unilaterally by the vendors. It is immaterial that even if the vendees had knowledge of the same and as such, the lower appellate Court could not have held that such cancellation was permissible by agreement. Such a contention of the learned counsel has to be accepted. A registered deed of sale cannot be cancelled unilaterally by the vendors even if it is held that the. vendees have knowledge of the same. It can only be done by a deed of reconveyance as rightly held by the learned trial Court. But such a finding would not in any any disturb the finding of facts recorded by the learned Courts below since despite such a finding the defendant No. 3 has successfully proved prescriptive title by 7 adverse possession with cogent evidence on record as discussed earlier. But such a finding would not in any any disturb the finding of facts recorded by the learned Courts below since despite such a finding the defendant No. 3 has successfully proved prescriptive title by 7 adverse possession with cogent evidence on record as discussed earlier. So far as acquisition of right by adverse possession in favour of defendant No. 3 is concerned, since it has been concurrently held that defendant No. 3 has acquired prescriptive title by adverse possession being in possession for more than a statutory period, she has to be held to have valid right to sell the property as has been rightly held by the Courts below. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter, I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Courts below and accordingly, the second appeal has to be dismissed. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, but in the facts and circumstance of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.