JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge. This appeal has been filed by defendant No.1 against the judgement, decree dated 5.10.1998 passed by District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1993 decreeing the suit of respondent No.1 after setting aside the judgement and decree dated 28.12.1992 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Una in Civil Suit No. 264 of 1986. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent No.1 had filed suit against the appellant and proforma respondent No. 2 for declaration that sale deed dated 1.10.1986 Ex. D-1 executed by proforma respondent No.2 in favour of appellant on the basis of power of attorney dated 3.9.1986 Ex. DW 5/A is wrong, illegal, void being result of fraud, mis-representation and respondent No. 1 is owner in possession of the suit land with further prayer for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction against appellant and proforma respondent No. 2 not to interfere on the suit land, alienate and transfer the suit land in any manner. 3. The pleaded case of respondent No. 1 is that he is owner in possession of the suit land. The appellant and proforma respondent No. 2 conspired with one Ram Murti and obtained general power of attorney dated 3.9.1986 Ex. DW 5/A of respondent No. 1 in favour of proforma respondent No.2, who on the basis of general power of attorney had executed sale deed of the land in dispute on 1.10.1986 in favour of appellant for alleged sale consideration of Rs.48,550/- and such sale deed was executed in connivance with marginal witnesses and scribe. The sale deed is wrong, illegal and not binding on respondent No. 1, who is owner in possession of the suit land. The appellant is threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land. The respondent No. 1 has already cancelled the general power of attorney by a revocation deed dated 6.10.1986 Ex. P-5. On these grounds, the respondent No. 1 filed the suit. 4. The suit was contested by appellant and proforma respondent No. 2 and they took objections of maintainability, locus-standi and valuation. It was pleaded that appellant is owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of sale deed. The appellant and proforma respondent denied any conspiracy, as alleged by respondent No.1. 4. The suit was contested by appellant and proforma respondent No. 2 and they took objections of maintainability, locus-standi and valuation. It was pleaded that appellant is owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of sale deed. The appellant and proforma respondent denied any conspiracy, as alleged by respondent No.1. It was pleaded that respondent No. 1 had executed a general power of attorney in favour of proforma respondent No. 2 to transfer the land of respondent No. 1 by way of sale, gift etc. The proforma respondent No. 2 on the basis of general power of attorney had executed sale deed dated 1.10.1986 in favour of appellant for sale consideration which was paid by proforma respondent No. 2 to respondent No.1. The appellant after the registration of the sale deed is owner in possession of the suit land. The cancellation and revocation of general power of attorney on 6.10.1986 has no effect on the right of the appellant on the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the general power of attorney dated 3.9.1986 in favour of defendant No. 2 by plaintiff is the result of fraud as alleged? If so, its effect? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP. 1.A. If issue No. 1 proved, whether sale deed dated 1.10.1986 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 is void abinitio as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPD. 4. Relief. The issues No. 1, 1(a), 2 and 3 were answered in negative and the suit was dismissed by Sub Judge on 28.12.1992. In appeal, the District Judge on 5.10.1998 set-aside judgement, decree dated 28.12.1992 and decreed the suit. Hence, second appeal, which has been admitted ion the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the DW-5/A which is a registered document could not be got executed and registered by the plaintiff/ respondent in favour of the proforma –respondent merely because the proforma-respondent was in a litigation with him? 2. Whether the power of attorney Ex. DW-5/A and sale deed Ex. D-1 which are registered documents carry the presumption of truth especially when no illegality has been proved by the plaintiff/ respondent at the time of the execution and registration of the aforesaid documents? 3. 2. Whether the power of attorney Ex. DW-5/A and sale deed Ex. D-1 which are registered documents carry the presumption of truth especially when no illegality has been proved by the plaintiff/ respondent at the time of the execution and registration of the aforesaid documents? 3. Whether in the absence of any medical certificate/ evidence it can be presumed that the plaintiff/ respondent was not in a sound disposing mind at the time of the execution of the power of attorney Ex. DW-5/A which is a registered document? 5. Heard and perused the record. Mr. M.S.Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no bar in law for execution of general power of attorney Ex. DW 5/A by respondent No. 1 in favour of proforma respondent No. 2 merely because there was some litigation between respondent No. 1 and proforma respondent No.2. The general power of attorney Ex. DW 5/A and sale deed Ex. D-1 are registered documents and carry presumption of truth. The respondent No. 1 has failed to establish any illegality for execution of Ex. DW 5/A and Ex. D-1. There is no presumption of law that in absence of medical evidence at the time of execution of general power of attorney Ex. DW 5/A, the respondent No. 1 was not in sound disposing mind. He has submitted that once the execution and registration of general power of attorney Ex. DW 5/A is established then duly executed sale deed Ex. D-1 would not fall on the ground of insufficiency of sale consideration. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned judgement. 6. Substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2 are interconnected, therefore, both of them are being taken up collectively for decision. PW 1 Kamal Singh has stated that he is unmarried, illiterate and has 100 kanals land in village Bharolia out of which 2½ Ghumaoo is cultivable and rest is Banjar. He lives with his brother, who and relatives of the witness look after his land. He had given no power of attorney to any person. Shadi Lal is a nephew of Milkhi Ram. Shadi Lal and Ram Murti took him on the pretext that some compensation amount from railway was to be released to him. He has litigation of land with Shadi Lal. He had given no power of attorney to any person. Shadi Lal is a nephew of Milkhi Ram. Shadi Lal and Ram Murti took him on the pretext that some compensation amount from railway was to be released to him. He has litigation of land with Shadi Lal. Deep Ram took him to Ropar and enquired about power of attorney, then he came to know that power of attorney was got prepared from him. He got the power of attorney cancelled later on. He had litigation with Ram Murti and Milkhi for the last about five-six years. Shadi lal runs halwai shop at Fuvra Chowk, Phase-7, Mohali. In cross- examination, he has stated that he is totally illiterate. He does not know even how to sign. 7. PW 3 Deep Chand is a witness with respect to revocation of general power of attorney of Kamal Singh. DW 1 Vijay Puri has stated that sale deed Ex. D-1 was scribed by his father Niranjan Dev Puri. The sale deed Ex. D-1 has been entered into 1986 register page No. 56, Serial No. 73 dated 1.10.1986. The names of witnesses Prem Chand Sharma, Advocate, Una and Ram .Murti are also entered. The father of the witness died on 23/24.8.1987. In cross-examination, he has stated that he has no personal knowledge of the document. DW 3 P.C. Sharma, Advocate has stated that he is a witness to document Ex. D-1. Ram Murti has signed as a witness and Shadi Lal has also signed the document. 8. DW 5 Bal Kishan has stated that he had been working as deed writer at Ropar since 1974. Ex. DW 5/A was typed by him, which was prepared at the instance of Kamal Singh in favour of Shadi Lal and was signed by the witness. Ex. DW 5/A after typing was read over to Kamal Singh in presence of witnesses and he accepted it to be correct and in token of correctness of document he put his thumb mark. Ranbir Singh Chaudhary, Advocate, Ropar and Ram Murti signed as witnesses. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had no personal acquaintance with Kamal Singh and Ram Murti witnesses. 9. DW 6 Ranbir Singh Chaudhary, Advocate has stated that he is witness to Ex. DW 5/A, which was prepared on 3.9.1986 at the instance of Kamal Singh in favour of Shadi Lal. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had no personal acquaintance with Kamal Singh and Ram Murti witnesses. 9. DW 6 Ranbir Singh Chaudhary, Advocate has stated that he is witness to Ex. DW 5/A, which was prepared on 3.9.1986 at the instance of Kamal Singh in favour of Shadi Lal. This was scribed by Bal Kishan, petition writer and was typed by Bal Kishan himself. After typing, it was read over to Kamal Singh and thereafter Kamal Singh put his thumb mark. Ram Murti and the witness signed thereafter. In cross-examination, he has stated that he did not have personal acquaintance with Kamal Singh but he knew Ram Murti witness. He has stated that Ram Murti had brought Kamal Singh alongwith Shadi Lal. 10. DW 7 Ram Murti has stated that on Ex. DW 5/A he had signed as a witness, which was executed by Kamal Singh in favour of Shadi Lal. This was scribed by Bal Kishan. After typing Ex. DW 5/A was read over to Kamal Singh and thereafter Kamal Singh put his thumb mark. The witness and Ranbir Singh, Advocate had signed thereafter. He is a witness to sale deed Ex. D-1. In cross-examination, he has stated that Kamal Singh has about 100 kanals land at Bharolia, which has very high market value, his some land was acquired by railways. He has stated that he is pursuing his land acquisition case acquired by railways. He has stated that Shadi Lal is in litigation with Kamal Singh. 11. DW 8 Shadi Lal has stated that Ex. DW 5/A was executed by Kamal Singh. Kamal Singh handed over the power of attorney to him in the shop. DW 9 Hari Dutt has stated that he had purchased the land from Shadi Lal on 16.1.1986 and the sale deed was executed on 1.10.1986. Rs.28,500/- was given as earnest money and balance Rs.20,000/- was paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. 12. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that Ex. DW 5/A general power of attorney could not be ignored merely on the ground that proforma respondent No.2 had litigation with respondent No.1. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that appellant and proforma respondent No. 2 had conspired with one Ram Murti and obtained general power of attorney Ex. DW 5/A general power of attorney could not be ignored merely on the ground that proforma respondent No.2 had litigation with respondent No.1. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that appellant and proforma respondent No. 2 had conspired with one Ram Murti and obtained general power of attorney Ex. DW 5/A from respondent No. 1 in favour of proforma respondent No.2, who executed the sale deed Ex. D-1 in favour of his cousin Hari Dutt. The respondent No. 1 is resident of village Bharolia Khurd, District Una. It has come on record that Ex. DW 5/A was prepared at Ropar (Rupnagar). It is not understandable and not explained by proforma respondent No. 2 and appellant why Ex. DW 5/A was prepared at Ropar. The case of respondent No.1 is that he is totally illiterate, issueless and lives with his brother. He owns considerable immovable property and earlier his some property was acquired by the railways. He was made to understand by proforma respondent No.2, appellant and Ram Murti that some amount of compensation of his earlier acquired land was to be released in his favour and, therefore, he accompanied them. They got prepared Ex. DW 5/A from him without telling him the nature of the document. He came to know later on that Ex. DW5/A is the general power of attorney executed by him in favour of proforma respondent No.2 with respect to the property of respondent No.1, he immediately got revoked Ex. DW 5/A but before that proforma respondent No. 2 on the basis of Ex. DW 5/A sold the land in dispute to appellant by playing fraud with respondent No.1. 13. DW 5 Bal Kishan is the scribe of Ex. DW 5/A, DW 6 Ranbir Singh Chaudhary, Advocate and DW 7 Ram Murti are the witnesses of Ex. DW 5/A. DW 5 Bal Kishan and DW 6 Ranbir Singh Chaudhary, Advocate have stated that they had no personal acquaintance with Kamal Singh and Ram Murti. DW 6 has stated that Ram Murti had brought Kamal Singh alongwith Shandi Lal. DW 8 Shadi Lal has stated that Kamal Singh after executing general power of attorney handed over the same to him in his shop. DW 7 Ram Murti has also stated that Shadi Lal was present on the spot. This shows that Shadi Lal was very much present at the time of preparation of Ex. DW 8 Shadi Lal has stated that Kamal Singh after executing general power of attorney handed over the same to him in his shop. DW 7 Ram Murti has also stated that Shadi Lal was present on the spot. This shows that Shadi Lal was very much present at the time of preparation of Ex. DW 5/A. 14. It is the stand of respondent No. 1 that he had not executed any power of attorney in favour of proforma respondent No. 2. He has rather stated that he had litigation with Ram Murti and Milkhi for the last about five-six years. Ex. P-3 is the certified copy of judgement dated 6.5.1989 in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1986, which was instituted on 9.1.1986, in which Shadi Lal is one of the appellants and Kamal Singh is one of the respondents. Ex.DW 5/A is dated 3.9.1986. It is thus clear that during the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1986, Ex. DW 5/A was prepared. Similarly Ex. P-4 is the certified copy of judgement dated 31.10.1989 in case No. 298/86, which was instituted on 9.12.1986. In Ex. P-4 also Kamal Singh is one of the plaintiffs and Ram Murti one of the defendants. Ex. P-4 also indicates litigation between Kamal Singh and Ram Murti. It is thus clear that when Ex. DW5/A was prepared around that time respondent No. 1 was in litigation with proforma respondent No. 2 as well as DW 7 Ram Murti witness of Ex. DW 5/A. In normal circumstances a person would not give special power of attorney with respect to his immovable property in favour of other person with whom he is in litigation and the document is witnessed by another witness with whom the executant is also in litigation. This is a highly suspicious circumstance, which has not been explained by proforma respondent No.2 and appellant as to what were the compelling reasons for respondent No. 1 to execute general power of attorney Ex. DW 5/A in favour of Shadi Lal. The respondent No.1 is an illiterate person. The Sub-Registrar has not been examined to prove that in fact Ex. DW 5/A in favour of Shadi Lal. The respondent No.1 is an illiterate person. The Sub-Registrar has not been examined to prove that in fact Ex. DW 5/A was actually read over to respondent No.1 at the time of registration, no explanation has been given for his non-examination, therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that merely the document is registered, therefore, there is a presumption that it was legally executed. 15. The statements of DW 5 Bal Kishan, DW 6 Ranbir Singh Chaudhary and DW 7 Ram Murti that Ex. DW 5/A was read over to respondent No. 1 are not sufficient to clear the suspicion. It has not been made clear whether in fact respondent No. 1 had understood the nature and implication of Ex. DW 5/A. The mere reading of the document to an illiterate executant is not enough, what is necessary is whether the executant in fact had understood the nature and implication of the document. There is no evidence to this effect that nature and implication of Ex. DW 5/A was explained to respondent No. 1 when he allegedly signed Ex. DW 5/A. The respondent No. 1 was not bed ridden when Ex. DW 5/A was prepared. He was 45 years old when his statement was recorded in the court on 23.10.1989. He could move out and walk without any help. The sale deed Ex. D-1 dated 1.10.1986 was prepared within one month from the preparation of general power of attorney Ex. DW 5/A dated 3.9.1986. There is no explanation why general power of attorney Ex. DW 5/A was prepared on 3.9.1986 when Kamal Singh was himself in a position to move. There is no explanation why general power of attorney Ex.DW 5/A was prepared at Ropar (Rupnagar) in stead of at Una. In any case, Kamal Singh could have executed power of attorney in favour of his brother with whom he was living at that time. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that respondent No. 1 had executed general power of attorney Ex. DW 5/A after understanding its nature and implication. 16. DW 9 Hari Dutt has stated that he had purchased 18 kanals 10 marlas land from Kamal Singh on 16.1.1986. The sale deed was executed by Shadi Lal. Rs.28,500/- was paid as earnest money and the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid on 1.10.1986 at the time of registry. DW 5/A after understanding its nature and implication. 16. DW 9 Hari Dutt has stated that he had purchased 18 kanals 10 marlas land from Kamal Singh on 16.1.1986. The sale deed was executed by Shadi Lal. Rs.28,500/- was paid as earnest money and the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid on 1.10.1986 at the time of registry. The sale deed Ex. D-1 is dated 1.10.1986, wherein payment of Rs.28,500/- has been shown to have been made on 15.9.1986 as earnest money. Ex. D-2 dated 15.9.1986 is receipt of payment of Rs.28,500/- by Hari Dutt to Shadi Lal. The statement of PW 9 Hari Dutt that he had purchased the land on 16.1.1986 is not inconsonance with sale deed Ex. D-1. There is no mention in the sale deed that the land in dispute was sold on 16.1.1986 or some agreement was executed on 16.1.1986. DW 9 Hari Dutt has not stated that he paid Rs.28,500/- to Shadi Lal on 15.9.1986. It has not been proved on record that power of attorney Ex.DW 5/A and sale deed Ex. D-1 were duly executed. The learned District Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record in setting aside the judgement, decree of the trial court. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any perversity in the impugned judgement, decree. In second appeal, re-appreciation of evidence is not possible. The impugned judgement and decree do not suffer from any illegality. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to make out any case in support of his contention with respect to substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2. In these circumstances, substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2 are decided against the appellant. 17. In so far as substantial question of law No.3 is concerned, it is not of much significance. It has come on record that respondent No. 1 was not made to understand the nature and implication of general power of attorney and consequences of general power of attorney. The proforma respondent No. 2 and appellant even in the absence of medical evidence regarding sound disposing mind of respondent No. 1 were required to prove the execution of general power of attorney by respondent No. 1 in favour of proforma respondent No.2, which they have miserably failed to establish. The substantial question of law No.3 is thus decided accordingly. 18. No other point was urged. The substantial question of law No.3 is thus decided accordingly. 18. No other point was urged. 19. As a result of above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.