JUDGMENT : Shri Arun Mishra, J. (1) The appeal has been preferred by the defendant aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 23. 8. 1993 passed by vth addl. District judge, sagar, in regular civil appeal no. 25 - a/92 which was filed against the judgment and decree dated 5. 10. 1990 passed by vith civil judge class - ii, sagar, in civil suit no. 1 - a/89. (2) Original plaintiff gulab chand, since deceased, has filed the instant suit for cancellation of sale deed and for permanent injunction with respect to the suit house bearing no. 11 - a situated at ballabh nagar ward, sagar. Plaintiff averred that he is the owner of the house in question and residing in the house. The portion of the house was in occupation of two tenants, namely, gajadhar sharma and nandan prasad parashar, they payed rent to the plaintiff. Plaintiff wanted to execute the sale deed in favour of his wife laxmi bai. The defendant took her to the court and by playing fraud he got the sale deed executed in his own name. Plaintiff demanded the sale deed several times, it was not given by the defendant on the pretext that less valuation was shown in the sale deed as such sale deed will be given back after 4 - 6 months after enquiry. Defendant got his name illegally mutated by playing fraud. Sale deed for a sum of rs. 6,500 was got executed by the defendant in his own name. In the sale deed it was shown to be an open land whereas on the spot two storeyed house was situated, electricity was also fitted. Infact plaintiff had entered into an agreement with santosh kumar katare on 7. 10. 95 for sale of the house for a sum of rs. 80,000, there was no question of selling the house to the defendant for a paltry sum of rs. 6,500. Defendant was trying to illegally dispossess the plaintiff and committed marpeet with the plaintiff on 13. 6. 1988. He took the possession of certain articles of which report had been lodged by the plaintiff in ps,motinagar, a case under section 307 ipc was registered against the defendant of which trial was pending before the competent court. The defendant had taken forcible possession on 13. 6. 1986, plaint has been amended so as to incorporate the relief of possession also. The defendant had taken forcible possession on 13. 6. 1986, plaint has been amended so as to incorporate the relief of possession also. (3) In the written statement filed by defendant plaint averments have been denied contending that original plaintiff is father - in - law, marriage of sunita, daughter of brother of plaintiff was performed with the defendant on 2. 11. 85. Defendant is a driver, consequently sale deed was executed for a sum of rs. 6,500 on 13. 1. 96. Due to relationship less consideration was received, inspite of the assurance plaintiff did not vacate the accommodation who was occupying the accommodation as tenant. No rent note was executed due to relationship. False report was lodged. (4) The trial court has found that defendant had played fraud while getting the sale deed executed in his own name for a sum of rs. 6,500, value of the house was rs. 80,000, agreement was entered into by the plaintiff with santosh kumar for sale of the house for a sum of rs. 80,000. Instead of house it was illegally mentioned in the sale deed that it was open land. Sum of rs. 65,000/ - was not received by the plaintiff as contended by the defendant. The payment of consideration of rs. 65,000 has not been found to be established. Defendant has illegally encroached upon the suit house, sale deed was illegal and void. The findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, appeal has been dismissed. As against the concurrent findings of fact, the instant appeal has been preferred. (5) The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law vide order dated 7. 3. 94 by this court : - " whether the conclusion of the courts below for declaring the sale deed dated 13. 1. 86 (ex. P2) as void in law is sustainable on the evidence on record and the provisions of the contract act?" (6) Shri k. N. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for appellant has submitted that from the evidence on record, it is clear that a sum of rs. 65,000 was paid and the sale deed was executed indicating the less consideration for a sum of rs. 6,500 in order to avoid payment of stamp duty, sale deed was valid, no fraud was played. 65,000 was paid and the sale deed was executed indicating the less consideration for a sum of rs. 6,500 in order to avoid payment of stamp duty, sale deed was valid, no fraud was played. (7) I have gone through the judgment of the courts below as well as the evidence adduced by the parties. It is apparent that valuation of the house was rs. 80,000. There was no question of selling the property for a paltry sum of rs. 6,500. Payment of consideration of rs. 65,000 has been rightly disbelieved as surendra kumar (dw. 1) has stated in para 37 of his deposition that he has handed over an amount of rs. 65,000 to his uncle and outside the office of registrar, the amount was paid to the plaintiff in presence of gorelal, ramprasad and suresh soni. Ramprasad and suresh soni have not been examined. Gorelal has been examined as dw. 2. On being questioned by the court, gorelal has clearly stated that aforesaid amount was not paid in his presence. He had only seen the money, thus, the defendant has not been able to prove that he had paid a consideration of rs. 65,000. Surendra kumar (dw. 1) has not examined his uncle also to prove the fact that amount of rs. 65,000 was deposited with him by the defendant. Surendra kumar being a driver used to earn a sum of rs. 600 per month only, thus, factum of purchase of the house by him for a sum of rs. 65,000 has been rightly discarded by the trial court which finding has been rightly affirmed by the appellate court. (8) Serious kind of fraud was also played upon plaintiff is apparent from the fact that admittedly the suit house is a double storied house, in the sale deed it was shown to be open piece of land, thus, as per sale deed the double storeyed house was not purchased by the defendant. Even after execution of so called sale deed plaintiff remained in occupation of the house. There was no rent note executed which would have indicated that he had sold the property. Sunita was niece of original plaintiff was the case set up by defendant but the documents which were filed by him indicated that she was daughter of plaintiff whereas case of plaintiff was that sunita was not his daughter. There was no rent note executed which would have indicated that he had sold the property. Sunita was niece of original plaintiff was the case set up by defendant but the documents which were filed by him indicated that she was daughter of plaintiff whereas case of plaintiff was that sunita was not his daughter. The case of adoption was again set up which has been discarded for cogent reasons by the courts below. Credentials of the defendant have also been doubted, against him a case under section 307 ipc had been registered for beating plaintiff and he was facing criminal trial, he had forcibly trespassed in house, taking law in his own hands. In view of concurrent findings which have been recorded, it is clear that serious kind of fraud had been played by the defendant upon the plaintiff while getting the sale deed executed. Evidence of defendant has been rightly discarded and that of plaintiff has been rightly accepted by two courts below,no question of law, muchless substantial question of law arises in appeal, the question framed is answered against appellant. (9) Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No costs.