JUDGMENT : K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.12.1993 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 66-A/1992 by Second Additional District Judge, Sidhi arising out of the judgment and decree dated 7.11.1985 passed in Civil Suit No. 58-A/1975 by the First Civil Judge, Class-I, Sidhi and is admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sale deed executed on 27.8.1975 is null and void and Mst. Dulariya was entitled to convey the legal rights in favour of the appellant? Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration, possession and injunction against the original appellant/defendant on the grounds that the sale deed executed in favour of original appellant was not binding on them and that the appellant would not get any title on the basis of sale deed dated 27.8.1975 as the executant of the sale deed was having no right, title or interest to transfer the suit land in favour of the original appellant. It was stated that originally one Shiv Prasad Patel was having certain interest over the property in suit. The said Shiv Prasad had two sons namely Garul @ Chandi and Deenbandhu. Deenbandhu died intestate. Garul had four sons namely Ramavtar @ Girdhari, Ram Sevak, Shiv Sevak and Ram Jiyavan. The property in suit was in fact obtained by Garul and Deenbandhu and the same remained recorded in their names. After the death of Deenbandhu, the entire land in suit and the property were inherited by Garul and after the death of Garul, by his legal representatives before the court below. It was found that a part of the land bearing Survey No. (old) 676 area 0.25 acre was got recorded in the name of original appellant/defendant and when he tried to dispossess the respondents/plaintiffs, the suit was required to be filed. 2. The suit was contested by the original appellant/defendant on the ground that the land in dispute was not belonging to Garul exclusively nor was inherited by the respondents/plaintiffs after the death of Garul. It was contended that the original person Shiv Prasad was having only one son Garul, who had four sons, Ramavtar, Ram Sevak, Shiv Sevak and Ram Jiyawan. The suit was contested by the original appellant/defendant on the ground that the land in dispute was not belonging to Garul exclusively nor was inherited by the respondents/plaintiffs after the death of Garul. It was contended that the original person Shiv Prasad was having only one son Garul, who had four sons, Ramavtar, Ram Sevak, Shiv Sevak and Ram Jiyawan. One Ratan Patel was having three sons and one daughter namely Deen Bandhu, Man Bahore, Kandhar and Dulariya. After the death of Ratan Patel, Deenbandhu, Man Bahore and Kandhar died intestate, therefore, the entire property went to Ms. Dulariya, who executed the sale deed in favour of the original appellant transferring the land in suit. By virtue of sale, the original appellant became the title holder of the land and thus no decree, as claimed, could be granted in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. 3. The trial court recorded the evidence of the parties after framing of the issue. The respondents/plaintiff examined the witnesses and proved certain documents. Ex. P-3 was the document of revenue entries of the land owned by Garul and Deen Bandhu in Kh. No. 676 for the years 1958-59. In the said Khasra entry, the names of Garul and Deen Bandhu with their father's name as Shiv Prasad was duly recorded. In the second Khasra entry, which was prepared in the year 1970-71 after settlement, again the names of the holder of the land were recorded to be Garul and Deenbandhu son of Shiv Prasad. This very same entry was further corroborated by the final Khasra entry prepared in the year 1972-73. The witness examined by the respondents/plaintiffs, was cross-examined at length. However, deliberately, with respect to these entries, no question was suggested nor any answer was obtained. The said witness has categorically deposed that Garul and Deenbandhu were brothers and sons of original holder of the land. He has proved the Khasra entries from Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3. He has categorically denied the fact that at any point of time the land was owned by Ram Ratan or any of his family member. He denied that the persons from whom the original appellant has purchased the property in suit, was having any title over the land. The other witness examined by the respondents/plaintiffs had not given any detail, but has said about the possession of the land by the respondents/plaintiffs. He denied that the persons from whom the original appellant has purchased the property in suit, was having any title over the land. The other witness examined by the respondents/plaintiffs had not given any detail, but has said about the possession of the land by the respondents/plaintiffs. In the cross-examination, the witness Ram Sunder Ram (PW-2) has not given the name of the father of Deenbandhu. 4. As against this evidence, the original appellant/defendant examined himself and has produced certain documents. According to his own document (Ex. D-1), the name of two persons were recorded in the Khasra entry namely Garul and Deenbandhu, but their father's name was not mentioned. This Khasra entry was in respect of some other land or the very same land was not disclosed. The other Khasra entry produced by the original appellant/defendant was with respect to mutation of his name. In his court statement, what original appellant/defendant has deposed, is with respect to genealogy suggested by him in his written statement. However, nothing was stated by him as to how he was saying that Deenbandhu was also the son of Ratan Patel and since all sons have died intestate, the entire property of Ratan Patel was inherited by Dulariya from whom a sale deed was obtained by the original appellant/defendant. No documentary evidence was produced by the original appellant to show that the land in suit was ever owned by Ratan Patel and this particular property was devolved to Dulariya after the death of Ratan Patel and all his sons. The other witnesses examined by the original appellant/defendant namely Ram Nihor (DW-2) and Shiv Murat (DW-3) have equally said nothing in this respect. Only in the cross-examination, the aforesaid witnesses have said that the property was belonging to Ratan Patel, but, how Ratan Patel has obtained the said land, nothing was produced or shown in that respect. 5. After appreciating these evidence, learned trial court reached to the conclusion that the respondents/plaintiffs have proved their claim and therefore, decreed the suit in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. Against such judgment and decree, the first appeal was preferred before the lower appellate court, and the said Court, after appreciating the entire evidence, reached to the conclusion that on appreciation of evidence available on record, no case was made out to interfere in the judgment and decree granted by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Against such judgment and decree, the first appeal was preferred before the lower appellate court, and the said Court, after appreciating the entire evidence, reached to the conclusion that on appreciation of evidence available on record, no case was made out to interfere in the judgment and decree granted by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that if the evidence produced on record is scrutinized and marshalled properly, it would be clear that there was no evidence available to show that the original holder of the land Shiv Prasad was having yet another son Deenbandhu. In fact the genealogy, as suggested by the original appellant/defendant in the written statement should have been accepted. If that is examined, it would be clear that the sale deed executed in favour of original appellant by Ms. Dulariya cannot be said to be illegal and therefore, such a declaration, as is granted by the courts below, would be liable to be set aside. Taking this Court to the entire findings recorded by the lower appellate court as also the trial court, it is contended by the learned senior counsel that the plaintiffs were to prove their case and the appellants/defendants were not to be burdened of proving the fact relating to the entitlement of said Dulariya to execute sale deed in favour of the original appellant/defendant. 7. True it is that it was the burden on the respondents/plaintiffs, but, when they discharged their burden of proving their interest over the land in suit by producing Ex. P/1, P/2 and P/3 wherein categorically the name of the father of the holders of the land was recorded, the burden was shifted on the original appellant/defendant to prove the genealogy suggested by him in his written statement as also to show that the land purchased by him by a registered sale deed from Dulariya was in fact belonging to Ratan Patel from whom the said land was inherited by Dulariya. In absence of discharge of this burden, the original appellant could not say that the judgment and decree granted by the courts below is bad in law. In absence of discharge of this burden, the original appellant could not say that the judgment and decree granted by the courts below is bad in law. Though the evidence is not required to be re-appreciated in second appeal by this Court, but, to satisfy this Court, with respect to the appreciation of evidence, the exhibited documents and the statements of witnesses of appellants and the defendants both are examined. The revenue entries duly produced and proved by the respondents/plaintiffs categorically indicate that the land in suit was belonging to Garul and Deenbandhu both and that they were the sons of Shiv Prasad. The appellants/defendants have completely failed to produce any document in rebuttal of these documents. Therefore, it has rightly been held by the two courts that the sale deed dated 27.8.1975 was null and void and could not be executed by Dulariya in favour of the original appellant/defendant. In view of these findings, no case is made out to interfere in the judgment and decree granted by the courts below. Answering the substantial question of law accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.