Shishir Kumar, J.;- This is a plaintiffs' second appeal arising out of suit for cancellation of sale deed as well as for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of property in dispute. 2. Brief facts stated in the plaint by plaintiffs are that from July, 1973, plaintiffs are tenant of House No.D-34/47 situated in Mohalla Ganesh Mahal, district Varanasi on monthly rent of Rs.80/-. Aforesaid house in dispute belongs to one Raj Laxmi Mukherjee wife of late Khagendra Nath Mukherjee. Earlier they were paying Rs.80/- per month but subsequently Rs.100/- was paid for which receipts were always being issued and sometimes rent was being sent by money order. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are powerful persons of the city and they wanted to grab the property and has threatened plaintiffs in the year 1992 to take forcible possession of property, as such, plaintiffs filed Suit No.91 of 1992 which was decided on 16.2.1993 restraining defendants not to dispossess plaintiffs forcibly. On 29.8.1992, defendants forcibly wanted to take possession of property and the son of plaintiff was beaten, so an FIR to that effect was also lodged. During pendency of Suit No.91 of 1992, plaintiffs sent a notice to landlady and requested that, in case, she wanted to sell the property, they are ready to purchase the same. Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee has informed that whenever this property is sold, it will be sold to plaintiffs. Subsequently, an offer to purchase the house in dispute was made and plaintiffs went to Calcutta and landlady Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee agreed to sell the said house in Rs.40,000/-. A registered sale deed was got executed on 12.8.1993. After purchasing the property they are living as a owner of the said house. They also made an application for expunging the name of Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee with an 'No Objection Certificate' of landlady concerned but an objection to that effect was raised that as registry was done at Calcutta therefore, a verification by the S.D.M.(Finance) is necessary. Plaintiffs after verification from S.D.M. concerned submitted it to Nagar Nigam. Then it came to knowledge of plaintiffs that one Rajendra Kumar Yadav S/o Bachau Lal Yadav has also made an application for expunging the name of Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee and to record his name on the basis of some sale deed. 3. Plaintiffs after verification from S.D.M. concerned submitted it to Nagar Nigam. Then it came to knowledge of plaintiffs that one Rajendra Kumar Yadav S/o Bachau Lal Yadav has also made an application for expunging the name of Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee and to record his name on the basis of some sale deed. 3. Plaintiffs received a notice on 28.9.1995 by Nagar Nigam, then they inquired into the matter and came to know that sale deed was not executed by Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee and alleged sale deed was executed by her son Sri Nirmal Kumar Mukherjee on the basis of power of attorney. It has also been stated that defendants have filed an application for restoration of the order dated 16.2.1993 in Case No.91 of 1992. In that Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee filed an application that she has not executed any sale deed in favour of Rajendra Kumar Yadav and if some document has been filed that is a forged document. Hence, suit for cancellation and injunction has been filed. 4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed their written statement denying claim of plaintiffs stating therein that there is no dispute to this effect that Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee is the owner of the house. Aforesaid House No.34/47 has been sold by Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee by registered sale deed dated 21.12.1991 on a price of Rs.70,000/- in favour of defendant No.1 and possession has also been given and he is the owner of the property. Alleged sale deed dated 12.8.1993 is a forged document being fact that plaintiffs were having full knowledge regarding sale deed dated 21.12.1991. Further averment was made in written statement that defendants have purchased the property in dispute after payment of Rs.70,000/-. Rs.30,000/- was given by Banker's cheque dated 19.12.1991 and rest of the amount was paid in cash to Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee. After execution of aforesaid sale deed, Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee was not the owner of the property, therefore, she had no right and title to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiffs dated 12.8.1993. Power of attorney dated 16.12.1991 has never been cancelled and there is no challenge by anybody except plaintiffs in the present suit regarding validity of sale deed dated 21.12.1991 in favour of defendants. Power of attorney dated 16.12.1991 has never been cancelled and there is no challenge by anybody except plaintiffs in the present suit regarding validity of sale deed dated 21.12.1991 in favour of defendants. Sale deed has been accepted by competent authority and on the basis of sale deed, he has submitted an application for mutation before Nagar Nigam in which plaintiffs have filed an objection. Plaintiffs are the tenant of a portion of the house in dispute and earlier they were ready to vacate the said premises but subsequently they refused to do so and on the basis of forged sale deed dated 12.8.1993, this case has been filed. 5. On behalf of plaintiffs rent receipts, three receipts of money-order original sale deed in favour of plaintiffs as well as affidavit dated 28.1.1994 which was filed in Suit No.154 of 1993 and other various documents have been filed. On behalf of defendants original assessment register dated 31.4.1976 to 31.3.1999, original sale deed dated 21.12.1991, power of attorney dated 16.12.1991 and sale deed dated 22.12.1945 executed by one Smt. Sarla Bala Devi in favour of Khagendra Nath Mukherjee husband of Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee and document regarding mutation as well as original document of mutation in favour of Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee as well as house rent and water tax receipts from 1977 to 1991 have been filed. On behalf of P.W.-1, plaintiffs as well as P.W.-2 daughter of Smt. Rajlaxmi Mukherjee have made a statement. On behalf of defendants only DW-1 Rajendra Kumar Yadav has appeared and no other witness appeared on behalf of defendants. 6. On the basis of pleadings of parties, trial court has framed various issues. One of the issue was whether on the basis of documents and facts stated by plaintiffs, whether sale deed dated 21.12.1991 is liable to be cancelled? Whether plaintiffs are the owner in possession of property in dispute? Whether suit is barred by Section 34 and what relief plaintiff can be granted? Original suit filed by defendants No.905/1996 was also clubbed with the present suit and has been decided together. In this suit defendants in brief have stated that they have purchased this property by a registered sale deed on 21.12.1991. Plaintiffs are in illegal possession of property in dispute. Original suit filed by defendants No.905/1996 was also clubbed with the present suit and has been decided together. In this suit defendants in brief have stated that they have purchased this property by a registered sale deed on 21.12.1991. Plaintiffs are in illegal possession of property in dispute. They are not the owner of the property and they were never in possession of the house in dispute except part of the accommodation. Therefore, they should be ejected from the property in dispute after payment of damages. Copy of decision dated 12.12.2000 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Varanasi in Case No.91 of 1992 was also filed. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings various issues were framed and trial court has decided all the issues involve in various suits together. 7. Issues involved in Suit No.650 of 1996 and Suit No.905 of 1996 were almost the same, therefore, that was decided together. Plaintiffs have come with a case before the Court that they are tenant of house in dispute from 1973 and when defendants wanted to take forcible possession then Suit No.91 of 1992 for interim injunction was filed. It was decided on 16.2.1993. When in spite of the order defendants wanted to take forcible possession of the property in dispute, plaintiffs have got executed a sale deed by Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee on 12.8.1993 and after that they have become owner of the property in dispute. When they filed an application for mutation, mutating their name then they came to know that another sale deed has been executed on the basis of power of attorney by the son of Raj Laxmi Mukherjee on 21.12.1991. It has also been submitted that Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee has also said that she has not executed any sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. In such circumstances, it was prayed that sale deed, if any, dated 21.12.1991 is there that should be cancelled and defendants be restrained from interfering in the possession. 8. It has also been submitted that Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee has also said that she has not executed any sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. In such circumstances, it was prayed that sale deed, if any, dated 21.12.1991 is there that should be cancelled and defendants be restrained from interfering in the possession. 8. Trial court on the basis of relevant records and issues framed thereunder regarding the fact whether sale deed dated 21.12.1991 is a valid document or not has recorded a finding that in the statement, plaintiffs have stated that son of Raj Laxmi Mukherjee was having no right to execute the sale deed and if any power of attorney is there that should be treated to be forged as it does not bear the signature of Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee. Trial court on the basis of pleading of parties has recorded a finding that defendant was having no knowledge regarding Suit No.91 of 1992, suit was decreed ex-parte on 16.12.1993 in which admittedly a restoration application filed on behalf of defendant is pending but in that case, plaintiffs have not made any whisper regarding sale deed dated 12.8.1993. This clearly goes to show that plaintiff has concealed various facts. Further finding has been recorded that defendant on the basis of sale deed dated 21.12.1991 has purchased the property after payment of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.30,000/- was paid through bankers' cheque in the name of Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee. The bankers' cheque cannot be en-cashed by any other person, therefore, any sale deed executed subsequently cannot be treated to be a valid document. Further finding has been recorded that during life time Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee has never challenged the registered power of attorney dated 16.12.1991 and validity of sale deed dated 21.12.1991. It appears that in collusion with the daughter of Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee this suit has been filed. 9. After considering the documents on record, trial court has recorded a finding that power of attorney dated 16.12.1991 and sale deed dated 21.12.1991 have been filed by defendants in original. Both the parties have said that sale deed of 1991-93 is the forged document. Admittedly, sale deed as well as power of attorney are the registered documents. Same has to be accepted unless and until proved otherwise. Both the parties have said that sale deed of 1991-93 is the forged document. Admittedly, sale deed as well as power of attorney are the registered documents. Same has to be accepted unless and until proved otherwise. Plaintiffs have said that signature of Raj Laxmi Mukherjee is a forged one but he has accepted that Nirmal Kumar Mukherjee is the son of Raj Laxmi Mukherjee and defendants have purchased the said house after payment of Rs.70,000/- and a banker's cheque of Rs.30,000/- was paid and rest of the amount has been paid in cash. A finding has been recorded that a sale deed has been executed in favour of defendant. At the time of mutation proceeding, plaintiffs were aware regarding the factum of execution of sale deed in favour of defendants. 10. Trial Court after recording such finding that power of attorney has never been challenged and this is a registered document, therefore, plaintiffs have failed to prove their case that sale deed executed in his favour is a valid doucment. 11. Plaintiffs aggrieved by judgment and order passed by trial court filed an appeal. Appeal too has been dismissed. Hence present second appeal has been filed. 12. Sri Anil Tewari, learned counsel appearing for appellants has submitted that as soon as plaintiffs have stated that Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee has executed a sale deed in their favour and sent a letter in Suit No.91 of 1992 that she has not executed any sale deed then immediately burden was upon defendants to prove that sale deed of 1991 was a valid document. Onus to prove genuineness and validity of sale deed in favour of defendants was upon defendants to prove but courts below has sifted burden upon plaintiffs. Further submission has been made that as admittedly, Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee and his son Nirmal Kumar Mukherjee have died, therefore, it was the duty of the courts below to call handwriting expert and to verify the signature upon the sale deed of 1991-92 and power of attorney as well as the letters sent by Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee in the suit filed by plaintiff in the year 1992. 13. In view of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, sale deed of 1991 was never proved. Therefore, that has got no evidenceary value. 13. In view of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, sale deed of 1991 was never proved. Therefore, that has got no evidenceary value. Sri Tewari has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 752 R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Another and has placed reliance upon para 29 and 30 of the said judgment. Same is being reproduced below:- "29. In a suit for recovery of possession based on title it is for the plaintiff to prove his title and satisfy the Court that he, in law, is entitled to dispossess the defendant from his possession over the suit property and for the possession to be restored with him. However, as held in A. Raghavamma and another v. Chenchamma and another, AIR 1964 SC 136 , there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof; burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. In our opinion, in a suit for possession based on title once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff' title. 30. In the present case, the trial Court and the first appellate Court have noted that the plaintiff has not been able to produce any deed of title directly lending support to his claim for title and at the same time the defendant too has no proof of his title much less even an insignia of title. Being a civil case, the plaintiff cannot be expected to proof his title beyond any reasonable doubt; a high degree of probability lending assurance of the availability of title with him would be enough to shift the onus on the defendant and if the defendant does not succeed in shifting back the onus, the plaintiff' burden of proof can safely be deemed to have been discharged. In the opinion of the two Courts below, the plaintiff had succeeded in shifting the onus on the defendant and, therefore, the burden of proof which lay on the plaintiff had stood discharged. The High Court, in exercise of its limited jurisdiction under S. 100 of C.P.C. ought not to have entered into the evaluation of evidence afresh. The High Court has interfered with a pure and simple finding of fact based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence which the High Court ought not to have done." 14. Taking support of aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for appellants states that onus has been shifted upon plaintiffs. Court below has committed an error apparent on the face of record. In a suit of possession of property based on title if plaintiffs create high degree of probability of his title to ownership, instead of proving his title beyond any reasonable doubt, it has been held that it would be enough to shift the onus on the defendants. In such circumstances, appellants submits that probability on the basis of various documents has been created before the court that sale deed of 1991 is not a genuine document and sale deed of 1993 executed in favour of plaintiffs is the genuine document, in such circumstances, plaintiffs have discharged their burden therefore, onus was on defendants to prove but the courts below has committed an error apparent on the face of record dismissing the suit filed by plaintiffs. The appellate Court has also committed the same error and dismissed the suit for cancellation of sale deed as well as for injunction. 15. The caveator has appeared on behalf of defendant-respondent and has submitted that sale deed has been executed in their favour on the basis of registered power of attorney executed by Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee dated 16.12.1991 and on that basis sale deed was executed after payment of amount of Rs.30,000/- by banker's cheque and that has been credited in the account of Raj Laxmi Mukherjee. These documents in original were filed before the court; In rebuttal, plaintiff-appellants have not filed any document to show that registered power of attorney executed in favour of son by the mother was a forged document and no authorization was given in the said power of attorney to sell the property by the power of attorney holder. These documents in original were filed before the court; In rebuttal, plaintiff-appellants have not filed any document to show that registered power of attorney executed in favour of son by the mother was a forged document and no authorization was given in the said power of attorney to sell the property by the power of attorney holder. Plaintiffs have not approached this court as well as trial court with a clean hand being fact that in suit for injunction filed in 1991 application filed by defendant to set aside the exparte decree is pending and in reply thereof in spite of knowledge, plaintiffs have not whispered any fact in the present suit. In restoration application, defendants have clearly stated that on 21.12.1991 a sale deed has been executed in favour of defendants. Further there is no challenge of the power of attorney at any point of time, therefore, courts below has rightly dismissed the suit. 16. I have considered the submissions of parties and perused the record. From the record it clearly appears that plaintiffs-appellants were the tenant of the portion of house in dispute. There may be some correspondence between plaintiffs and Raj Laxmi Mukherjee regarding purchase and sale of the property but from the record it appears that power of attorney has been executed and on that basis sale deed was executed in favour of defendants respondents. As regards submission made by appellants, that as soon as plaintiffs has stated that sale deed of 1991 is a forged document, onus and burden is upon defendants to prove regarding the validity of 1991 sale deed. Defendants have come with a clear case before the court that sale deed dated 21.12.1991 has been executed by power of attorney dated 16.12.1991 in favour of son by Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee. Original power of attorney as well as original sale deed were filed before the Court. Under the Evidence Act, if registered original document is filed unless proved otherwise, it will be treated to be genuine document. From the record it clearly appears that at no point of time, power of attorney executed in favour of son by the mother has ever been challenged and cancelled. Under the Evidence Act, if registered original document is filed unless proved otherwise, it will be treated to be genuine document. From the record it clearly appears that at no point of time, power of attorney executed in favour of son by the mother has ever been challenged and cancelled. Both the courts have recorded a finding of fact that power of attorney is a genuine document executed by the owner of the property in favour of his son giving a right to make transaction of the property. It was never a case of plaintiffs that son was not authorized to execute the sale deed and power of attorney is a forged document. From the record it also appears that plaintiffs were having knowledge in view of fact stated in the application filed by defendants in 1991 suit regarding sale deed of 1991. Therefore, any sale deed executed subsequent to that by Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee cannot be held to be a valid document. Once it is established that smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee has executed a valid power of attorney and on that basis defendants have purchased the property after payment of amount, it cannot be held that sale deed executed in favour of defendants is a forged document. 17. As regards, contention of plaintiffs that Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee has already sent a letter in mutation proceeding that has got no validity in the eye of law being fact that letter has not been proved. It was the duty of the plaintiffs to have verified the signature/thumb impression of Smt. Raj Laxmi Mukherjee on the power of attorney and the sale deed executed in his favour. Contention of appellants is not acceptable to the Court being fact that it was a suit for cancellation of a sale deed, executed earlier to the sale deed of the plaintiffs. Therefore, onus and burden was upon the plaintiffs to create a doubt on the basis of evidence that sale deed of 1991 was not valid and has been executed by a person who was not authorize to execute the sale deed. Further there was no challenge of the power of attorney at any point of time by the plaintiffs. Therefore, if power of attorney was valid then any sale deed executed by the power of attorney holder cannot be said to be a valid document. 18. Further there was no challenge of the power of attorney at any point of time by the plaintiffs. Therefore, if power of attorney was valid then any sale deed executed by the power of attorney holder cannot be said to be a valid document. 18. In view of facts and circumstances, I am of opinion that both the courts have recorded a finding of fact based on evidence and no error has been committed by the courts below. The present appeal is hereby dismissed being fact that no substantial question of law is involved. 19. No order as to costs. 20. Office is directed to issue a regular number before issuance of certified copy of the order.