JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Admitted facts giving rise to this appeal are that Sadhu Ram, appellant and Dinesh Kumar, respondent No. 1 are real brothers and are sons of late Shri Gian Singh. Respondent No.2 Master Pardeep and Respondent No. 3 Master Randeep are the sons of Dinesh Kumar; whereas Smt. Bhagirathi, Respondent No. 4 is his (Dinesh Kumars) wife. Gian Singh died after executing and getting the sale deed Ex. PW-3/C registered in favour of respondent No. 4 his daughter-in-law Bhagirathi. 2. It is further not in dispute that prior to it, he had executed a registered will Ex. DA in favour of his grand-sons i.e. Respondents No. 2 and 3 on 1.12.1988. Sale deed Ex. PW-3/C (execution whereof has been proved by defendant No. 4 after having shown its original to DW-2 Brij Bhushan Lal, Document Writer, Paonta Sahib as Ex. DA), is executed on 30.1.1990 and is also registered on the same day. It was on the intervening night of 30th and 31st January, 1990 that Gian Singh died. 3. In the aforesaid admitted facts and background, appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is in joint possession to the extent of half share of land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 284/591 to 604, Kitta 17, measuring 4 bighas and 13 biswas and qua his half share house situate in Village Singhpura-Bhagani is not affected by the Will dated 1.12.1988 as well as by sale deed dated 30.1.1990. As a consequential relief, it was also prayed that he is entitled to joint possession of the suit property along with respondent No.l Dinesh Kumar. 4. Basis for seeking this declaration was that the property in question was ancestral in the hands of his father late Shri Gian Singh as he had inherited the same from his father late Kahanaya Singh along with his other brothers, namely, Patti Ram, Karam Singh, Beni Singh, and Govind Singh. Mutation of inheritance in favour of all the five sons of late Kahanaya Singh was attested on 28.4.1952 vide No. 702. 5. Thus, according to him, appellant, his late father and respondent No. 1 constituted Hindu Undivided Family and he had got right in it by birth. Mutation of inheritance in favour of all the five sons of late Kahanaya Singh was attested on 28.4.1952 vide No. 702. 5. Thus, according to him, appellant, his late father and respondent No. 1 constituted Hindu Undivided Family and he had got right in it by birth. Appellant being away in connection with his service in U.P., Respondent No. 1 who was residing with his deceased father, took advantage of it and firstly got a will executed and thereafter a sale deed. According to him, both documents were fictitious and Gian Singh died after few hours of the execution of the sale deed. He had no right to sell the property in question and consideration of Rs. 16,000 shown in this sale deed was a sham transaction and did not confer any right on respondent No. 4. Thus both these documents were not binding upon the appellant. Consequently, it was prayed that Mutation Nos. 2552 and 2553 on the basis of the Will as well as sale deed dated 15.3.1990 are like-wise not binding upon the appellant since respondents denied the title of the appellant, hence this suit. 6. Defendants No. 1 to 3 filed a common written statement and pleaded that the joint status of the family was severed long ago by the father of the appellant since he had separated and was allotted land as well as house as detailed in preliminary objections of the written statement. This separation took place in the year 1970 when land was allotted to him in Village Singhpura-Bhagani. Thereafter, the appellant settled in Uttar Pradesh. 7. Since late Gian Singh owed Rs. 16,000 to one Haria, he intended to sell the land. At this juncture, respondent No. 4 with a view to keep the land within the family, took financial assistance from her brothers and got the sale deed executed. It was further pleaded that Will as well as sale deed both are valid documents and claim made to the contrary was liable to be dismissed. At no point of time, the appellant looked after his late father, who was being taken care of by respondent No.l after the former Had separated. 8. In the written statement filed by defendant no. At no point of time, the appellant looked after his late father, who was being taken care of by respondent No.l after the former Had separated. 8. In the written statement filed by defendant no. 4, plea regarding the appellant having separated from his father was reiterated and sale deed being executed by him in her favour was to save the property from being sold to outsider. The amount of Rs. 16,000 was paid by her brothers Gian Singh and Bhagwan Singh and it was thus they got the sale deed executed in her favour. According to her, Gian Singh had every right to dispose of the property being its absolute owner in addition to the fact that he owed money to one Haria aforesaid. 9. While filing replication to both the written statements, appellant denied the averments made in the written statements which were contrary to the plaint and reiterated all the facts set up in the plaint. Thus on the aforesaid pleadings parties went to trial on the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is the member of joint Hindu Family Property as such he has right, title or interest in the suit land? O.P.P. 2. Whether late Shri Gian Singh was incompetent in law to execute the will dated 1.12.1988 and sale deed dated .30.1.1990 as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the will dated 1.12.1988 and sale deed dated 30.1.1990 are fraudulent and fictitious document as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff was separated from the Joint Hindu Family in the year 1960 from his father as alleged, if so its effect? OPD 5. Whether the will dated 1.12.1988 is a valid Will executed by late Sh. Gian Singh in sound state of mind? OPD 6. Whether the sale deed executed by late Sh. Gian Singh on 30.1.1990 is legal and valid sale deed as alleged? OPD 7. Relief. 10. After recording evidence and after examining the evidence, both oral as well as documentary, suit of the appellant was dismissed and in appeal said decree passed by the trial Court has been upheld. OPD 6. Whether the sale deed executed by late Sh. Gian Singh on 30.1.1990 is legal and valid sale deed as alleged? OPD 7. Relief. 10. After recording evidence and after examining the evidence, both oral as well as documentary, suit of the appellant was dismissed and in appeal said decree passed by the trial Court has been upheld. It is against this judgment and decree dated 8.4.1994 in Civil Appeal No. 55-N/13 of 1992 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan upholding the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No. II, Paonta Sahib District Sirmour in Civil Suit No. 61/I of 1990 dated 22.11.1992, that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 11. This appeal was admitted on the following questions of law: 1. Whether the mere fact that a father who is the Karta of a coparcenary family gifts some property to his minor sons out of the coparcenary property and the said sons, start residing separately after attaining majority and joining some service has the effect of severance of the joint Hindu Family? 2. Whether a person who has been ailing for quite sometime and executes a sale deed just a few hours before his death can be said to have done so in his senses keeping in view the fact that previously he had been signing the documents whereas the last sale deed was executed by affixing his thumb mark? 12. So far substantial question of law No. 1 noted is concerned, both the learned Courts below have concurrently held as a question of fact that there was a severance of status in jointness after land was allotted by late Gian Singh not only to the appellant, but also to Respondent No. 1. In this behalf it may be noted that there is overwhelming evidence not only of respondents but even the two sisters who have been examined by the appellant being P. W.s 2 and 3. They have categorically admitted in no uncertain terms that their father had given land to both his sons i.e. appellant as well as respondent No. 1. It has also come in their evidence that their father was having no source of income except from land. No doubt, PW-3 has gone on record to say that on her marriage, he did not raise any loan. It has also come in their evidence that their father was having no source of income except from land. No doubt, PW-3 has gone on record to say that on her marriage, he did not raise any loan. However, other sister who has appeared as PW-2 stated that her father had raised money for her as well as her other sister Roshanis marriage. He raised money and then parted with the land. Besides this, appellant has also admitted that no doubt, he was given separate land and house was also given to him, but he was minor at that point of time. He further stated that as such there was no question of either severance of status or any other private partition having been effected as alleged in the written statement. It may be observed here that in his replication, he has denied this plea urged on behalf of the defendants. 13. Findings in this behalf are pure findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence. I am further satisfied that it cannot be said on examination of the evidence that the findings recorded are either contrary to record or could not have been arrived at all. Much less being perverse. In the face of this position question No. 1 is held to be not a question of law much less substantial question of law. 14. In Roushan Devi v. Ramji Sah and others, JT 2001 (5) SC 320, Supreme Court considered the matter relating to lack of consent by mother. It was held that it was essentially a question of fact and first Appellate Court being final court of fact having held the consent being valid consent, dismissed the appeal upholding the decision of the High Court. 15. In Chandra Bhan v. Pamma Bai and another, 2001 AIR SCW 2295, concurrent findings, that plaintiff was not in possession of the disputed land, were upset in second appeal. While reversing such findings, Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. In this behalf, it may be recorded that the findings recorded by both the Courts below in this second appeal are based on evidence on record and therefore those call for no interference. 16. Now coming to second substantial question of law, referred to hereinabove. In this behalf, it may be recorded that the findings recorded by both the Courts below in this second appeal are based on evidence on record and therefore those call for no interference. 16. Now coming to second substantial question of law, referred to hereinabove. On examination of evidence from the statement of appellant himself, it is clear that his late father Gian Singh was in need of money before his death, therefore, he sold his land. This he has stated in examination-in-chief himself on the back side of page 16 of the trial Court file. He has further admitted that the land which was given to him as well as to his brother was ancestral in nature and he was separated by his father in the year 1975 when 10 bighas of land and kacha house was given to respondent No. 1. This not only supports the findings regarding severance of status but also that the said property not being joint. But it further goes to show that their father did require money before his death. It has also come in evidence that deceased father of the appellant and respondent No. 1 was not having any income, in addition to maintain himself, he required money for his treatment etc., therefore after raising money would part with the land. 17. It may be observed in this behalf that once plea of partition between the coparceners resulting in severance of status of jointness is accepted, then deceased Gian Singh was well within his right to have disposed of the property in question in the manner he liked and appellant had no right to question the same. There is ample evidence to suggest that no doubt Gian Singh died on the night intervening 30/31st January, 1990, but he was in full senses that he executed sale deed Ex. PW3/C=Ex. DX. In this behalf deed writer has specifically stated that he scribed this document in question at the instance of deceased Gian Singh and who after admitting its contents executed the same. In the face of this position, no exception can be taken to the sale deed by deceased Gian Singh in favour of his daughter-in-law respondent No. 4. Another reason to uphold the sale is that he was indebted to the extent of Rs. 16,000 from him. In cross-examination of this witness i.e. DW Haria nothing has been brought to dislodge him. Another reason to uphold the sale is that he was indebted to the extent of Rs. 16,000 from him. In cross-examination of this witness i.e. DW Haria nothing has been brought to dislodge him. May be that before going to the next world he (Gian Singh) thought to relieve himself of his this liability. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the sale deed was a sham transaction, therefore, not binding on the appellant as alleged in the plaint. 18. In view of the facts and circumstances enumerated herein above, it is held that sale deed Ex. PW3/C=Ex. DX was lawfully and validly executed and got registered in favour of respondent No. 4 by deceased Gian Singh before his death and no fault can be found with it. Accordingly this question is also answered against the appellant. 19. No other plea is urged in support of either of the two questions extracted hereinabove. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Appellant will pay the cost to the respondents throughout. Appeal dismissed.