JUDGMENT U.C. Maheshwari, J. The appellants-defendants have approached to this Court u/s 100 of the CPC on getting unsuccess in both the Courts below being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2-9-1997 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh in Civil Regular Appeal No. 5-A/88 confirming the decree passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Tikamgarh in Civil Original Suit No. 29-A/83 vide dated 17-8-1983 by which the suit of the respondent was decreed. As per averment of the plaint Shri Valdu, the father of the respondent No. 1 were two brothers. Said Valdu was elder and younger to him Shri Bhairov who had died issueless before three years while Valdu had died 25 years ago from the date of initiation of the suit. Valdu had one son, the respondent No. 1 and one daughter the appellant No. 1 from his wedded wife the appellant No. 2. There was a joint Hindu family of said Valdu and Bhai rav, the same had a agricultural land described in para 2(a) of the plaint bearing survey Nos. 24i, 251, 314 to 318 to 889, Total survey No. 20, area 2.952 hectare, land revenue 28.68 as absolute property while had half share in survey No. 213, area 0.134 and had 1/15 the share in survey Nos. 245 and 250. The total area 0.092 hectare. The same was recorded in the name of aforesaid both the brothers. Beside aforesaid the land bearing survey Nos. 312, 313, 470, 209, 24/K, 211 and 909, total survey No. 9 area 4.214 hectare the land revenue 9.77 described in para 3(a) of the plaint was exclusive property of said Shri Bhairav and the same was recorded in his name. They had two houses of said family in the same village as pleaded in para 4(a) of the plaint as described in Annexure (Ka) and (Kha) of the same. Late Bhairav had entered in an agreement to sell of his entire property to respondent No. 1 and appellant No. 1 in equal share, vide dated 2-2-1977. The consideration was also received by him as mentioned in the agreement and possession was also delivered accordingly. Late Bhairav had entered in an agreement to sell of his entire property to respondent No. 1 and appellant No. 1 in equal share, vide dated 2-2-1977. The consideration was also received by him as mentioned in the agreement and possession was also delivered accordingly. Subsequent to this agreement the respondent No. 1 was remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract to get registered the sale deed from him, but the same was not executed by him and respondent was remained under his influence and assurances for the same as respondent No. 1 was in possession of his share in the same. The appellant No. 1 has sold his share of the land inherited from the father Valdu to respondent No. 1 in consideration of Rs. 1500/-, vide registered sale deed dated 17-5-1978. The possession of the same has also been delivered to him. Since then he is in possession. But in the year 1981 the respondent No. 1 was told by appellant Nos. 1 and 2 that they had the ownership of 3/4th share in the disputed property, while he has only l/4th share in it. Then only he came to know that the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 had got the mutation in the revenue record, vide dated 16-11-1978 as told by them without any intimation to respondent No. 1 and on such mutation, the appellant No. 1 had transferred the same to her sons, the appellant Nos. 3 to 5 and got it mutated in their names. Then the respondent has initiated the suit as said above. While in the joint written statement of the appellants, it was denied that plaintiff No. 1 is a son of said Valdu, in fact he is son of appellant No. 2 but born from the illegal and illegitimate relationship of her with one Pandit Gyani Choubey as she had become bad character even in the lifetime of Valdu. Hence the respondent No. 1 has no right or interest in aforesaid property. The said properties were not remained the Joint Hindu Family property as the same was partitioned in the lifetime of Valdu and Bhairav in equal shares. Accordingly they were remained in possession of the same. The land recorded in the name of Bhairav was his property and the same was remained in his possession. The houses were not included in it. Accordingly they were remained in possession of the same. The land recorded in the name of Bhairav was his property and the same was remained in his possession. The houses were not included in it. In 1975 on attaining the majority by respondent No. 1, he was given half of the share out of the share of Valdu in aforesaid land, but subject to condition that he will serve, look after and maintain to appellant Nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly the same was mutated in his name as per settlement. The alleged agreement of 1977 executed by said Bhairav in favour of respondent No. 1 and appellant No. 1 and the sale deed of 1978 executed by appellant No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 1 were without consideration as the same was not given by respondent No. 1. In fact such documentations were carried out to settle and hold the marriage of respondent No. 1. A Panchnama was also executed by respondent No. 1, vide 1-7-1978. According to it he had accepted that no rights would be acquired in his favour by the aforesaid agreement and sale deed. That is why the name of appellant Nos. 3 and 5 were mutated in the revenue record. The Bhairav has given his entire estate to appellant No. 1 by executing a Will, vide dated 26-2-1960. In view of such Will the said agreement and sale deed do not give any rights to the appellant. The said Will was the last Will of said Bhairav. At the request of respondent No. 1 in 1978 the 3/4th share of the land of Bhairav was mutated in his name while the remaining l/4th of the share was recorded in the name of appellant No. 1. Thereby the agreement of 1977 executed by Bhairav had become inoperative. All these facts were known to respondent No. 1 from the date of such mutation. Thus, the averments of respondent No. 1 that the same were known to him only in 1981, is apparently false. As per terms respondent has not served, maintained or looked after to appellant Nos. 1 and 2. With these averments they prayed for dismissal of the suit. In view of the pleadings the issues were framed, the evidence was recorded. Thus, the averments of respondent No. 1 that the same were known to him only in 1981, is apparently false. As per terms respondent has not served, maintained or looked after to appellant Nos. 1 and 2. With these averments they prayed for dismissal of the suit. In view of the pleadings the issues were framed, the evidence was recorded. On appreciation of the same, by holding to respondent No. 1 as son of Valdu the family of Valdu and Bhairav was held not to be a joint family and accordingly the said property was held not to be a property of such undivided joint family. The respondent No. 1 was held to be a Bhumiswami and in possession of his share of the property mentioned in paras 2-A and 3-A of the plaint. The respondent No. 1 was declared to be owner of the property as successor. The respondent No. 1 has acquired the rights in the property of Bhairav by said agreement and by succession also. It was further held that the said Will executed by Bhairav in favour of appellant No. 1, vide dated 21-2-1960 was cancelled by him by executing the agreement to sell dated 2-2-1977. Therefore, on strength of such Will the appellant No. 1 has not acquired any right, title, interest or possession of such property. In pursuance of it the suit of respondent No. 1 was decreed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction as prayed by him. The same was challenged by the appellants before the subordinate appellate Court. On hearing by elaborate reasons the same was dismissed by affirming the decree of the trial Court. Hence this appeal was preferred on behalf of the defendants/appellants. The same was admitted on following substantial questions of law :- i. Whether the document Ex.P/1, whereby the Will, Ex.D/2 was claimed to he cancelled, a genuine document? ii. Whether the lower appellate Court was right in admitting Ex.P/1 in evidence despite the fact it was an unregistered document? iii. Whether the lower appellate Court arrived at the finding against the appellants by misreading the document? ii. Whether the lower appellate Court was right in admitting Ex.P/1 in evidence despite the fact it was an unregistered document? iii. Whether the lower appellate Court arrived at the finding against the appellants by misreading the document? Learned counsel for the appellants Shri Umesh Trivedi by mentioning the facts mentioned in the written statements as described above, has submitted that the deceased Bhairav has executed a Will (Ex.D/2), vide dated 26-2-1960 in favour of appellant No. 1 by virtue of it she has acquired her property on his death. The said Will was never cancelled by said Bhairav at any point of time. On wrong appreciation of the document agreement to sale (Ex.P/1) as alleged executed by said Bhairav in favour of the appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 1, the Will was found to be cancelled while said agreement Ex.P/1 was only an agreement to sale and not the document of cancellation of the Will. Beside this the said Will was proved as genuine document by admissible evidence while the said agreement to sell Exh.P/1 in which the terms and conditions of the sell were mentioned and it could have not been treated as a document of cancellation of Will. Even otherwise Ex.P/1 was not admissible for any purpose in the absence of the suit for specific performance. The same was not filed by either of the parties. In the absence of it, by virtue of section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, Ex.P/1 does not give any right or title to either of the parties, except to protect their possession, under the part performance against the transferor but the same could not have been used as a sword against the appellant to file the suit. In any circumstances the particular of these documents could not be taken in consideration to draw the inference regarding cancellation of the Will, Ex.D/2. Thus, the finding in this regard are not sustainable and prayed to answer the question No. 1 in favour of the appellants. So far the second substantial question of law is concerned, he has submitted that the document, Ex.P/1 was wrongly admitted by the Courts beiow because it was not a document of sale but only an agreement to sell. The same was not registered. So far the second substantial question of law is concerned, he has submitted that the document, Ex.P/1 was wrongly admitted by the Courts beiow because it was not a document of sale but only an agreement to sell. The same was not registered. In view of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act it does not give any right or title to the parties, as such it was inadmissible. The same could not have been taken into consideration unless the same is registered under the Registration Act. The intention of the party should have been seen by the Courts below. The same was executed as an agreement to sale not for the cancellation of the Will. Even registered Will could not have been cancelled without registered document and the Ex.P/1 was never registered. Thus, the findings of the courts below relying on it is apparently contrary to law and prayed to answer the question accordingly in his favour by holding the Will as genuine document. So far third question is concerned, he has submitted that share of the parties in relating to the property of Valdu has not been decided in accordance with the provision of Hindu Succession Act and unequal share have been held by the Courts below. He has also submitted that interest of the parties in the property of late Bhairav was wrongly held on basis of the provision of Hindu Succession Act. While by virtue of said Will the appellant No. 1 was the only the person who acquired the title in his property. The execution of the Will and other circumstances have been proved in her favour by cogent evidence but by misreading the same. The suit of the appellant was decreed by the trial Court and the same error has been committed by the appellate Court in dismissing her appeal by affirming the decree of the trial Court. He has also placed his reliance on some decided cases. While other hand the counsel for the respondent No. 1 Mr. R. K. Samaiya by mentioning the facts pleaded in the plaint as described above has justified the approach of the Courts below and prayed for affirming the impugned judgment and decree. According to him the questions as framed by the Court are not covered by section 100 of the CPC as the same are not the substantial questions of law. R. K. Samaiya by mentioning the facts pleaded in the plaint as described above has justified the approach of the Courts below and prayed for affirming the impugned judgment and decree. According to him the questions as framed by the Court are not covered by section 100 of the CPC as the same are not the substantial questions of law. Having heard, the learned counsels 1 have gone through the record. According to it some of the lands were recorded in the name of Valdu the father of the appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 1 and husband of appellant No. 2 and Bhairav the brother of said Valdu as it was a joint property. While some agricultural land was recorded only in the name of said Bhairav, the Uncle of the appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 1 as his property. So far the share of Valdu is concerned, his share was mutated in the name of appellant No. I and respondent No. 1 as it is evident by Ex.D/5. Subsequent to it the appellant No. 1 has transferred her share in favour of respondent No. 1 for consideration of Rs. 1500/- by registered sale deed, Ex.P/2 vide dated 17-5-1978. By virtue of it the land was mutated in the name of respondent No. 1 as evident by Ex.P/3, the Namantran Panji. The execution of this sale deed, Ex.P/2 and the mutations, Ex.P/3 are admitted by the appellants in para 13 in their written statement. Although some facts and circumstances regarding execution of such document were mentioned in the same paras of the written statement. On appreciation of the evidence this transaction was found to be genuine and enforceable on appreciation of the evidence and such finding being finding of fact cannot be interfered at the stage of second appeal. In view of said admission of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 the principle of estoppel defined u/s 115 of the Evidence Act and also by virtue of section 58 of the Evidence Act, the appellants are estopped to challenge the same. Thus, the findings given by the Courts below in this regard could not be said to be wrong in any manner. Thus, the same is hereby affirmed. The deceased Bhairav had executed a Will (Ex.P/2), vide dated 26-2-1960. Thus, the findings given by the Courts below in this regard could not be said to be wrong in any manner. Thus, the same is hereby affirmed. The deceased Bhairav had executed a Will (Ex.P/2), vide dated 26-2-1960. According to it he has directed to give his property to appellant No. 1 but the same was cancelled by Ex.P/1, the agreement to sell executed by Bhairav on 2-2-1977. Although Ex.P/1 was executed by him in the shape of an agreement to sale his property in favour of appellant No. 1 and respondent 1 and in furtherance of this on receiving of Rs. 15,000/- as consideration the possession of the property was also parted to the prospective purchaser as said above in equal share. It is settled position of law that nomenclature of the document is not relevant but the matter written in it is always relevant. The execution of said Will and this document are admitted fact between the parties. But as per agreement to sell Ex.P/1 Bhairav has not only contracted to sell his property to appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 1 but simultaneously as per language of it he had cancelled the Will, Ex.D/2 also. At this juncture this Court has to see that in which manner the Will could have been cancelled by the testator Bhairav. In this regard I would like to refer section 62 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which read as under :- 62. Will may be revoked or altered - A Will is liable to be revoked or altered by the maker of it at any time when he is competent to dispose of his property by Will. In view of the aforesaid provision of law a Will could be revoked by maker of it in his lifetime, if he is competent to dispose of his property by Will. It is not in dispute that Bhairav was competent to execute any document even after executing Ex.D/2. the Will. The admission of the appellant in para 14 of their written statement regarding execution of said Ex.P/1 by Bhairav is very relevant which shows his competent-ness to execute the documents. Thus, by virtue of said section 62 of the Indian Succession Act he has admittedly revoked his Will by cancelling the same by Ex.P/1 and entered in agreement to sell of his property as said above. Thus, by virtue of said section 62 of the Indian Succession Act he has admittedly revoked his Will by cancelling the same by Ex.P/1 and entered in agreement to sell of his property as said above. As per my considered view Court has authority to consider the document as per intention of the executer irrespective that the Ex.P/1 was executed for the purpose of sale his property but by the same document the Will Ex.D/2 was also cancelled. Although it could not have been used as a sword by respondent No. 1 as a plaintiff in the other litigation in relation to contract to sell because the same is governed by section 53-A and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. But in the light of section 62 of the Indian Succession Act the Ex.P/1 could be considered very well to hold the document Ex.D/2, Will as cancelled and the same is admissible under the law for this limited purpose. Thus, the Court below have not committed any error in holding the Will as cancelled document by Ex.P/1. Accordingly it has been held that both the Courts below have not misread the aforesaid document in passing the impugned decree. I have not been shown by the counsel for the appellant any legal position or interpretation regarding registration of the document by which the Will is cancelled by the testator. Thus, the objection of appellant in this regard are not sustainable. So far the case laws cited on behalf of the appellants are concerned, the same are not applicable to the case at hand in view of the aforesaid circumstances. a. In the matter of Ram Gopal Reddy vs. The Additional Custodian Evacuee Property Hyderabad reported in 1966 SC 1438, in it, the principle laid down that the sale of the property having worth more than Rs. 100/-, the title does not pass to the transferee unless the sale deed is registered. In the case at hand the agreement to sell, Ex.P/1 was not taken for consideration regarding sale transaction. But the same was taken in consideration regarding cancellation of Will in view of section 62 of the Indian Succession Act. 100/-, the title does not pass to the transferee unless the sale deed is registered. In the case at hand the agreement to sell, Ex.P/1 was not taken for consideration regarding sale transaction. But the same was taken in consideration regarding cancellation of Will in view of section 62 of the Indian Succession Act. b. Other decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Delhi Motor Company and others vs. U. A. Basrurkar and others, 1968 SC 794, in it the provision of Registration Act regarding sub-lease and the provision of part performance as enumerated u/s 53-A has been considered which is not the situation here: The same is not relevant with the cancellation of the Will. Thus, it is also not helping to the appellants. c. In the matter of Ramchandra Purushottam Pankhraj vs. Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur reported in 1981 M.P.L.J. 46, the same was decided on account of doctrine of part performance as enumerated u/s 53-A of the T.P. Act and it has been held that on such agreement no title suit could be filed by the transferee but in view of the aforesaid the present suit was not based on such agreement but it was a case based on personal law. Thus, the same is not applicable here. d. In the matter of Kishanlal vs. Ramesh Chandra Gandhi and others reported in 7990 JLJ 770, it was held that agreement of sell does not create any interest in the property. The title based only on registration of the sale deed. In the case at hand the agreement to sell was not considered for declaring the title but the averment in that deed regarding cancellation of the Will was considered in view of the provision of section 62 of the Succession Act. Thus, this citation is also not helping to the appellants. Thus, the framed question Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in affirmative while the question No. 3 is answered in negative and against the appellants. Therefore, in view of the forgoing reasons I have not found any merit in this appeal, hence it deserves to be and is hereby dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree of the Courts below. There shall be no order as to costs. The decree be drawn up accordingly. Final Result : Dismissed