Shabihul Hasnain, J.;— Heard Sri B.R. Singh learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan for the sole respondent. 2. The appellant counsel has insisted that the matter may be heard finally today itself. Counsel for the opposite party is also ready with his arguments. Both the counsel were heard at great length. 3. The instant second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 7.2.2012 passed by Uper Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sitapur in Regular Suit No.837 of 2008 (Smt. Ram Dulari vs. Smt. Om Kumari) and the judgment and decree dated 6.3.2012 passed by Additional District Judge / Special Judge, Sitapur in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2012 ( Smt. Om Kumar vs. Smt. Ram Dulari). 4. The appellant has lost from both the courts below and there are concurrent finding of facts against him. For proper adjudication of the matter short narration of the facts giving rise to this second appeal is necessary. The matter relates to cancellation of a "gift deed". The doner is alive. A regular suit No. 837/2008 was filed by Smt. Ram Dulari (Plaintiff-respondent) vs. Smt. Om Kumar (Defendant-appellants). Suit was filed for cancellation of gift deed. The same was allowed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and a civil appeal was preferred in 2012. 5. Smt. Ram Dulari plaintiff-respondent was 'Sankramdiya Bhoomidhar' of plot no. 585 measuring 0.821 and plot no. 661 measuring 5.359 of village Sarna Jalalpur, Pargana Bedi, Tehsil Sidhauli, District Sitapur. She has 1/3 right in this property. The husband of the plaintiff were three brothers Gajodhar, Parmeshwardeen, and Indrajeet. Parmeshwardeen and Indrajeet died. Ram Singh is the son of Parmeshwardeen. The plaintiff has three married daughters Rajwati, Ramshri and Omshri. The plaintiff is an old lady and was 75 years of age at the time of filing of the suit. Her vision is severely impaired and the doctors have certified her number as 1/60 in the right eye and 2/60 in the left eye. It is clear that the eyes are extremely weak. The plaintiff has alleged that Ram Singh took her to some place for getting her old age pension for the widows. Ram Singh had fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff. Om Kumari is the wife of Ram Singh. She was defendant in the trial court and the present appellant. It is clear that the eyes are extremely weak. The plaintiff has alleged that Ram Singh took her to some place for getting her old age pension for the widows. Ram Singh had fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff. Om Kumari is the wife of Ram Singh. She was defendant in the trial court and the present appellant. On the pretext of getting her pension the husband of the appellant Ram Singh got the signatures of the respondent Ram Dulari and got the gift deed executed. Ram Dulari has alleged fraud and misrepresentation of facts and has denied ever making gift deed in favour of Ram Singh. 6. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the gift deed is a registered document. It has been proved. The plaintiff has stated on affidavit that she has never made any gift deed. She has also stated that she does not know what Ram Singh has written. She has given her property to her daughters. She is totally illiterate. She has also stated that wife of Ram Singh has never served her properly. Pyare Lal P.W. 1 has also deposed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. He is the nephew of Ram Dulari. He has further stated that Ram Dulari is nearly 80 years of age. She is extremely old. She is hard of hearing and has difficulty in vision. D.W. Mahendra Singh is marginal witness of the gift deed. He has also admitted that Ram Dulari can not read and write. He has also stated that he has not seen the gift deed prior to the date of registration. He has also stated that he does not know the name of other marginal witnesses. He has further stated that gift deed was drafted by Ram Singh and he does not know the contents. He has also stated that he does not know whether the boundaries of plot no. 585 have been given in the gift deed or not. D.W. 3 Jarakhan has stated that he was not present at the time of drafting of gift deed. He has come to give his evidence on the request of Ram Singh. He does not have any personal knowledge about the gift deed. The trial court has given a finding on these statements. 7. The trial court has correctly come to the conclusion that there was a relationship of confidence between Ram Singh and Ram Dulari. He has come to give his evidence on the request of Ram Singh. He does not have any personal knowledge about the gift deed. The trial court has given a finding on these statements. 7. The trial court has correctly come to the conclusion that there was a relationship of confidence between Ram Singh and Ram Dulari. Ram Singh was the only son amongst three brothers. Ram Dulari had great confidence and faith for Ram Singh. Using this faith and confidence Ram Singh duped her into believing that she is being taken to get old-age pension. The documents which were signed by her were not in her knowledge. She has denied the intention of making gift deed. She has alleged fraud in so many words. Her eye-sight is definitely weak. Her age was approximately 75 years at the time of alleged gift deed. Now she is 80 years of age. When the person making the gift deed is alive and herself making allegation of fraud. Weightage has to be given to her statement. She has married daughters. The finding of fact appears to be correct. There were two witnesses Mahendra and Kamta in favour of defendant-appellant. They were both related to appellants. Hence, both these witnesses are interested witnesses. One other witnesses Jarakhan has also stated that he has come on the invitation of Ram Singh. 8. In these circumstances, the trial court has correctly come to the conclusion that the gift deed was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation of the facts. The appellate court has correctly come to the conclusion that there was no good ground to interfere with the orders of trial court. 9. In view of the concurrent findings of both the courts and the fact that Ram Singh was in a position to influence the old lady of 75 years of age, the court feels that the concurrent findings are absolutely correct. There is no substantial question to be decided in this matter. it is settled view of all the courts that fraud vitiates everything. The court does not find any good reason to interfere in this matter. 10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. _