JUDGMENT 1. - Heard at admission stage. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 21.2.2003 passed by the learned Dist. Judge, Dungarpur in Civil Appeal No. 31/98 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff and upheld the judgment and decree dated 28.10.98 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dungarpur in Civil Original Suit No. 6/94 whereby he dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff appellant for cancellation of sale-deed dated 21.8.78. 3. It may be stated that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for cancellation of registered sale-deed dated 21.8.1978 which was got executed by one Jeeva (father of respondents No. 2 to 8) in favour of the respondent No. 1 defendant No. 1. The case of the plaintiff-appellant is that the land in dispute bearing Khasra No. 399 and 402 was sold by Jeeva (father of respondents No. 2 to 8) through a sale-deed dated 24.8.91 and since then he was in possession of the land in dispute, but since he has come to know that earlier to the sale-deed dated 24.8.91, Jeeva had already sold the same land to respondent No. 1 through registered sale-deed dated 21.8.78, therefore, that sale-deed dated 21.8.78 which was got executed by Jeeva in favour of the respondent No. 1 be declared null and void. 4. A reply was filed by the respondent No. 1 and other defendants (respondents No. 2 to 8) and the case of the defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1) is that since 1978, he is in possession of the land in dispute and he is cultivating the land in question as he is the registered owner and if after 21.8.78, any sale-deed was got executed in favour of the appellant-plaintiff by Jeeva, that is of no value and hence the suit be dismissed. 5. 5. That on the basis of pleadings of parties, the learned trial Court framed six issues and after recording evidence through judgment and decree dated 28.10.1998, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant inter alia holding that the plaintiff has not been able to prove the fact that he has been in possession of land in question since 1991 and since earlier sale-deed dated 21.8.78 was got executed by Jeeva (now dead) in favour of the respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1), therefore, if any subsequent sale-deed was got executed by Jeeva, it has no value and thus, the learned trial court also decided issue No. 2 against the plaintiff and the learned trial Court placed reliance on Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. Against the judgment dated 28.10.1998, the appellant-plaintiff preferred first appeal before the learned Dist. Judge, Dungarpur and the learned Dist. Judge through judgment and decree dated 21.2.2003 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant and upheld the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.2.2003 passed by the learned Dist. Judge and judgment and decree dated 28.10.98 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), this second appeal has been preferred by the appellant-plaintiff. 8. In my considered opinion since there is concurrent findings of facts and there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal, hence, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. Apart from this as per Section 48 of the Transfer of property Act, transferrer cannot prejudice the right of transferee by any subsequent dealing with the property and since there is registered sale-deed dated 21.8.78 in favour of the respondent No. 1 which was got executed by Jeeva, that should prevail and from that point of view also, the findings of the lerned courts below that the plaintiff-appellant though he is brother of deceased Jeeva has no locus standi to get the registered sale-deed dated 21.8.78 cancelled are liable to be confirmed one and since the findings recorded by the Courts below are based on the proper appreciation of evidence available on record, the same do not require any interference by this Court. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, the judgment and decree dated 21.2.2003 passed by the learned Dist. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, the judgment and decree dated 21.2.2003 passed by the learned Dist. judge, Dungarpur and judgment and decree dated 28.10.98 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Dungarpur do not require any interference by this Court and the present second appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed.Accordingly, the present second appeal is dismissed. *******