ORDER :- Heard Shri Manoj Misra, learned counsel for appellant. No one appears for the respondent. 2. This second appeal arises out of OS 59 of 1972 for cancellation of the sale deed dated 6-3-1972, executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, in the court of Munsif, Bisauli District Budaun. The suit was dismissed on 26-8-1976. The Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1976 filed by the plaintiff was allowed on 22-3-1977 and the suit for cancellation of sale deed was decreed. 3. Briefly stated that facts given in the plaint are that the disputed land was recorded as hereditary tenancy of Shri Prem Raj. His first wife Bhaggo died leaving Smt. Anandi as her daughter, who married Shanker Lal of Village Jasopur. The defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are her children. After the death of Bhaggo, Prem Raj married Katori. Smt. Katori executed two sale deeds in respect of agricultural plots in favour of her daughter Smt. Kailaso and her husband Badam Singh-defendant No. 2. The sale deed were not registered the date the suit was filed. The registration number of the sale deeds was given in the plaint by an amendment. The first sale deed was for Rs. 2000/- in respect of two plots with an area of 5 bighas 2 biswas and 5 biswansi and the second for Rs. 7000/-in respect of two plots with an area of 7 bigha 14 biswas 15 biswansi. The plaintiff Anandi claimed that both the sale deeds were fraudulent and were liable to be cancelled. They were fictitious and were executed without any sale consideration. 4. The trial court held that Katori had a right to sell the land and that she executed the sale deeds for valid sale consideration. 5. In Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1976 the appellate Court re-appreciated the entire evidence, and while setting aside the findings of the trial court, it upheld the findings that Smt. Anandi could succeed only after the death of Smt. Katori. The plaintiff that Smt. Anandi had a right to safeguard her interest and consequently she could bring the suit. She could challenge the sale deeds to be fictitious and without sale consideration. The appellate court then held that for first sale, nothing was paid before the Registrar and that for second sale deed, out of Rs. 7000/- only Rs. 3000/- was paid before the Registrar. She could challenge the sale deeds to be fictitious and without sale consideration. The appellate court then held that for first sale, nothing was paid before the Registrar and that for second sale deed, out of Rs. 7000/- only Rs. 3000/- was paid before the Registrar. The actual payment, therefore, was doubtful. She could have executed gift deed in favour of her daughter. She did not explain as to why, instead of executing the gift deed, which could have saved registration charges, she chose to execute the sale deed. Smt. Kailasho-the purchaser did not appear in the witness box to prove the payment of sale consideration. The marginal witnesses were not produced. In the back ground, the appellate court found the sale deeds were fake and fictitious transactions and were executed to avoid passing of the property to the plaintiff-Smt.Anandi. 6. The second appeal was admitted on 6-5-1977 without framing any substantial question of law. Shri Manoj Kumar Misra, however, argued the second appeal on the question which I find to be the substantial question of law:- "Whether the plaintiffs, having no title over the plots in dispute, had locus standi to challenge the sale deed in question only on the ground that she could have succeeded to the property on the death of the vendor ?" 7. Shri Manoj Misra submits that Smt. Anandi-the plaintiff was married daughter of Prem Raj. She could only succeed to his properties under section 171 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950, recorded as agricultural land on the death of Smt. Katori-the second wife of Prem Raj. On the date of execution of the sale deed by Smt. Katori, the step mother, the plaintiff was not the bhumidhar of the land. She was as such not entitled to challenge the sale made by Smt. Katori. 8. In the present case plaintiff Anandi could not succeed to the agricultural property until the second wife and widow of her father Smt. Katori Died. Till then Smt. Anandi, had no interest in the property. She also was not a person who could have reasonable apprehension, that the instrument left outstanding may cause her serious injury. She was also not a co-owner of the property to attract section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act. 9. Till then Smt. Anandi, had no interest in the property. She also was not a person who could have reasonable apprehension, that the instrument left outstanding may cause her serious injury. She was also not a co-owner of the property to attract section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act. 9. Under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order a document to be delivered up and cancel and have it declared void and voidable against any person, who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument if left outstanding may cause him serious injury and in such case the Court has a discretion to declare the status of right of such person. 10. Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act gives a right to co-owners of immovable property to transfer their share or any interest therein which the transferee acquires, as to such share or interest, and so far as it is necessary to give effect to the transfer, the transferors right to joint possession or other common or part enjoyment of the property and to enforce a partition of the same but subject to the conditions and liabilities affecting, at the date of the transfer, the share or interest so transferred. 11. In Bachan Singh v. Waryam Kaur, (1998) 8 SCC 707 the Supreme Court held that the degree collaterals had no locus standi to file suit for cancellation of the gift deed. 12.Once it is held that plaintiff Smt. Anandi did not have any title or any interest under section 31 of the Specific Relief Act to challenge the sale deed, the enquiry whether the sale deed was a sham transaction and whether any sale consideration was paid was not relevant. A person having no interest in the property had no locus standi to challenge the sale. 13. The substantial question of law is as such answered in favour of plaintiff with the findings that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit to challenge the sale deed. The second appeal is consequently allowed. The judgment and decree dated 22-3-1977 in Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1976 passed by District Judge, Budaun is set aside. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and the suit is dismissed with costs throughout. Order accordingly.