Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties. This second appeal arises out of O.S. No.354 of 1982, which was instituted by the respondent Sri Chhiddu Singh minor son of late Sri Maharaj Singh through his next friend/ sister Smt. Omwati. The relief claimed in the said suit was for cancellation of the sale deed dated 25.04.1981 executed by late Sri Maharaj Singh (plaintiff's father) in favour of the defendant appellant Shiv Pal Singh. The suit was dismissed by Munsif, Hawali, Aligarh on 30.05.1984. Against the said decree plaintiff respondent filed Civil Appeal No.167 of 1984. II Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh through judgment and decree dated 04.02.1985 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 25.04.1981. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the lower appellate court. Through the sale deed agricultural land admeasuring 3 bighas 17 biswas 5 biswasis was sold for Rs.28,750/-. In the sale deed it was shown that Rs.18,700/- had earlier been paid and Rs.10,000/- were paid before the Registrar. The executant of the sale deed Maharaj Singh was murdered on 13.12.1981. FIR was lodged against the appellant and Jagbir Singh, however Sessions Judge, Aligarh acquitted them through the judgment dated 07.06.1983 passed in Session Trial No.314 of 1982. The case taken up in the plaint was that wife of Maharaj Singh had died seven or eight years before, that Maharaj Singh had two daughters and one son (plaintiff) and after the death of his wife he married off his two daughters, that plaintiff being infant his sister Omwati (who filed the suit as guardian) brought him after her marriage to her husband's house. It was further pleaded that due to the death of his wife Maharaj Singh was very depressed and became a mental case, and that he started residing with defendant who induced him to take wine and that defendant got the sale deed executed from Maharaj Singh under the influence of wine and sale consideration was not paid. It was further pleaded that few days before the execution of the sale deed defendant had kept Maharaj Singh in the house of his brother-in-law Indrajeet Singh at Himmatpur Tehsil Khair District Aligarh (para-5 of the plaint). It was further pleaded that few days before the execution of the sale deed defendant had kept Maharaj Singh in the house of his brother-in-law Indrajeet Singh at Himmatpur Tehsil Khair District Aligarh (para-5 of the plaint). It was also pleaded that Atar Singh, cousin of Maharaj Singh got published in the newspaper an information in that regard on 22.04.1981. However it came in evidence and Uttar Singh admitted that Maharaj Singh had some other agricultural land also which he had sold to him ( Atar Singh) on 23.06.1979. The trial court held that sale deed was voluntary act of Maharaj Singh and he executed the sale deed in his full senses after receiving complete sale consideration and no undue influence etc. was exercised by the defendant. However, lower appellate court reversed all the findings. This second appeal was admitted on 18.03.1985 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the finding of the lower appellate court that the execution of the sale deed was obtained under undue influence is vitiated due to misleading of the pleadings and evidence on record? (ii) Whether the lower appellate court acted in accordance with law in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreeing the suit with cost? The details of fraud and deception were given in Para-9 of the plaint. The gist of the contents of the said para is that the sale deed was not executed by the plaintiff's father out of free independent will, that the defendant exercised undue influence and illegal pressure and took the father of the plaintiff in his control and taking undue advantage of mental weakness and loneliness of the plaintiff's father, the sale deed was got executed, that sale consideration was not paid, neither Rs.18,750/- before execution of the sale deed nor Rs.10,000/- before Sub-Registrar, that market value of the land was Rs.50,000/-, that at the time of execution of the sale deed plaintiff's father was under the influence of wine, that defendant did not allow Maharaj Singh to consult his well wishers, real relations and daughters, that scribe and witnesses of sale deed were defendant's confidants and in collusion with him. There cannot be a presumption that after death of wife, a person becomes of unsound mind. Absolutely no evidence of unsoundness of mind of Maharaj Singh after death of his wife was led. There cannot be a presumption that after death of wife, a person becomes of unsound mind. Absolutely no evidence of unsoundness of mind of Maharaj Singh after death of his wife was led. The trial court took into consideration that just two years before the execution of the sale deed plaintiff's father had executed another sale deed of his other agricultural land in favour of his cousin Atar Singh and same Atar Singh had got published the information in the newspaper. Regarding murder of Maharaj Singh, the Sessions Court had acquitted him. Trial Court also took into consideration that after seven or eight months of the execution of the sale deed there was absolutely no occasion or reason to murder Maharaj Singh in connection with the sale deed as the same had already been executed eight months before. Original sale deed was filed by the defendant. At the back page of the sale deed, Sub-Registrar has mentioned that out of Rs.28,750/-, Maharaj Singh was paid Rs.10,000/- in his presence and Maharaj Singh had after understanding the contents of the sale deed which were read over to him admitted the same. The lower appellate court mentioned that Sub-Registrar did not endorse on the sale deed that executant admitted before him that he had already received Rs.18750/-. It was not essential for the Sub-Registrar to mention each and every content of the sale deed including the content relating to payment of Rs.18,750/- earlier, after mentioning that each and every content had been admitted by the executant. Trial Court had also mentioned that Sub-Registrar did not state that Maharaj Singh was drunk or in any manner unable to understand either the contents of the deed or his actions. Absolutely no reason was given by the plaintiff that why Maharaj Singh himself did not file the suit for cancellation of sale deed or why the suit for cancellation of the sale deed was filed on 01.11.1982 i.e. after about one and a half year of execution of the sale deed and after about one year of murder of Maharaj Singh. The lower appellant court in spite of the fact that the appellant had been acquitted in the criminal case under Section 302, I.P.C. held that his involvement in the murder could not be ruled out. The lower appellant court in spite of the fact that the appellant had been acquitted in the criminal case under Section 302, I.P.C. held that his involvement in the murder could not be ruled out. Chhidda D.W.-2 who was also one of the attesting witnesses of the sale deed was relation of both the parties, plaintiff as well as defendant as mentioned by the lower appellate court itself. Thumb impression of Maharaj Singh on the sale deed were not denied by the plaintiff. No evidence was adduced to show that at the time of the execution of the sale deed Maharaj Singh had taken wine and was so drunk that he could not even understand the consequences of his actions. It is also important to note that no evidence was led that even if Maharaj Singh was completely drunk, the wine was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will by the appellant. If a person by himself takes wine then he cannot escape even the consequences of his criminal acts vide Section 85, I.P.C. Advertisement in the newspaper by Atar Singh could indicate that he was interested in getting the property of Maharaj Singh hence on hearing that he was going to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant he got that information published in the newspaper. On the contrary Maharaj Singh had himself given an application before Chief Judicial Magistrate against Atar Singh. The findings recorded by the lower appellate court are not based upon any admissible evidence. Relevant pieces of evidence have been ignored/ or brushed aside without any reason by the lower appellate court. The judgment is also against the pleadings for the reason that in the plaint it is not mentioned that wine had been administered to him without his knowledge or against his will by the appellant. In such scenario findings recorded by the lower appellate court are liable to be set aside in Second Appeal in view of the following Supreme Court authorities: (i) State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh, AIR 2005 SC 1868 (ii) Ramlal v. Phagua, AIR 2006 SC 623 (iii) Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal, AIR 2006 SC 2234 (iv) Makhan Singh (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Vs. Kulwant Singh, AIR 2007 SC 1808 (v) Abdul Raheem v. The Karnataka Electricity Board and Ors., AIR 2008 SC 956 (vi) U.R. Virupakshaiah v. Sarvamma and Anr., AIR 2009 SC 1481 (vii) Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali, AIR 2010 SC 2679 Accordingly, both the substantial questions of law are decided in favour of the appellant. Second Appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court is set aside and judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing the suit is restored. However sometimes in order to adjust the equities and to do complete justice, a winning party even though not at fault at all may be directed to pay some reasonable damages/ compensation to the losing party. Accordingly, it is directed that appellant shall pay Rs.25,000/- to the respondent by 30.11.2012 failing which since December, 2012 one percent per month interest shall be payable thereupon. The amount, if not paid, may be recovered in the execution proceedings. _