Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.— Heard Sri Anupam Kulsrhestrha learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellants for cancellation of the sale deed dated 24th June, 1986. The sale deed was executed by Respondent No.2, Smt. Shila Devi, who was the mother of the appellants. The suit was filed in the year 1993 after one of the appellants attained the age of majority on the ground that the sale-deed was executed against the interest of the minor and for inadequate consideration. 3. The respondent No.1-defendant put in appearance and took a plea that the sale-deed was validly executed after permission and that the executor did not take any objection to the said sale-deed prior to the filing of the suit or even during the pendency of the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit and the same was affirmed by the appellate court. 4. Sri Kulsrhestrha submits that the sale-deed was voidable at the instance of the minors on account of inadequate consideration and secondly on account of non-consideration of provisions of Section 8 of the U.P. Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. 5. He has thirdly contended that the consideration amount, which had been received, was to be deposited in a fixed deposit as per the permission granted by the learned District Judge and non-compliance of such a condition also renders the sale-deed invalid. 6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions raised, and in my opinion none of the three issues raised gives rise to any substantial question of law inasmuch as the permission had been granted and so far as the deposit of the amount in the fixed deposit is concerned, that was the duty of the natural guardian, who has received the consideration amount and not of the defendant-respondent No.1. Secondly, the respondent No.2, who is the mother of the plaintiff-appellants never assailed the sale deed on any ground nor was she produced as a witness in the witness box even in the present suit to contest the allegation of undue influence being exercised by the defendant-respondent No.1. The mere allegation made by the plaintiff in this regard, therefore, was not proved by producing the respondent No.2 Shila Devi. Thus, in the absence of any such evidence having been led by the plaintiffs, they failed to prove their case. The mere allegation made by the plaintiff in this regard, therefore, was not proved by producing the respondent No.2 Shila Devi. Thus, in the absence of any such evidence having been led by the plaintiffs, they failed to prove their case. The finding, therefore, recorded on facts does not suffer from any perversity so as to give rise to any substantial question of law. 7. The circumstance of the mother not taking any objection to the sale-deed was, therefore, an additional ground for inferring that the sale-deed had been validly executed. The alleged inadequacy of consideration was a mere allegation which could not be proved on the basis of any material on evidence on record. Apart from this, in the opinion of the Court, even assuming that there was some short fall in the consideration amount, the same would not render the sale-deed to be void or voidable at the instance of the plaintiff-appellants who appear to have risen to the occasion after having attained majority when their mother who had executed the deed did not come up supporting their case. 8. In the aforesaid background there does not arise any substantial question of law and the appeal is dismissed summarily. _____________