JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi,J.: - Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for appellant on the admission of appeal. 2. This Second Appeal has been filed by plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2014 passed by the Appellate Court allowing the appeal filed by defendant, whereby suit for cancellation of sale-deed filed by plaintiff/ appellant has been dismissed. 3. Plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of sale dated 27.12.2005 on the allegation that he was a bhumidhar with transferable rights in respect of 1/4th share of Plot no. 940 (area 1.182 hectare). As he wanted to repay a loan to the bank, he approached the defendant to negotiate the sale of aforesaid land to the extent of 1 bigha kham. It is alleged that defendant agreed to purchase the said land against the sale consideration of Rs.35000/-, pursuant to which a registered sale deed was executed on 27.12.2005. After plaintiff accepted the aforesaid sale consideration, it was alleged that plaintiff was neither permitted to read the contents of sale deed nor was the same read over to him and upon an enquiry made by plaintiff to let him go through the contents of sale-deed, defendant is alleged to have feigned an excuse. However, on 25.07.2007 when defendant attempted to cultivate the entire holding of plaintiff, it transpired that defendant had got the sale deed dated 27.12.2005 executed in respect of entire 1/4th share of plaintiff as against 1 bigha kham, hence the suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 27.12.2005. 4. The suit was contested by defendant on the ground that he is the tenure-holder in possession under registered sale-deed dated 27.12.2005 after payment of sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- to plaintiff in respect of entire 1/4th share of aforesaid land. It was further alleged that prior to execution of the registered sale-deed on 27.12.2005, parties had entered into an agreement to sell dated 20.12.2005, wherein plaintiff had agreed to sell the aforesaid land for Rs.50,000, out of which Rs.20,000/- was accepted as earnest at the time of agreement. Subsequent to agreement and upon payment of sale consideration of Rs.30,000/-, sale deed was executed and registered on 27.12.2005. It was further stated that allegations made in the plaint are false and concocted and based on concealment of facts. 5. Subsequent to agreement and upon payment of sale consideration of Rs.30,000/-, sale deed was executed and registered on 27.12.2005. It was further stated that allegations made in the plaint are false and concocted and based on concealment of facts. 5. Plaintiff filed a replication (16-C) wherein for the first time a plea of mortgage was raised and it was stated that as plaintiff and Surendra (defendant) were sharing a close relationship, plaintiff approached him for Rs.20,000/- and against payment of the same, a deed of mortgage was executed in respect of 1/4th share of plaintiff. 6. The Trial Court after exchange of pleadings and evidence held that as parties are closely related, i.e., defendant happens to be the son-in-law of his elder brother and also in view of the fact that plaintiff himself admitted that he did execute a sale-deed in respect his entire 1/4th share, the Trial Court passed a decree of cancellation of sale deed dated 27.12.2005 in so far it was in excess of 1 bigha kham, i.e. sale deed was held to be valid in respect of 1 bigha kham. The defendant preferred an appeal, which came to be allowed under the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.01.2014, wherein judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside and the suit dismissed. 7. It is urged on behalf of appellants/ plaintiff that as defendant-respondent did not pay sale consideration beyond 1 bigha kham, sale-deed in excess of 1 bigha kham was liable to be cancelled. 8. The plaint allegations were absolutely silent on the execution of a prior agreement to sell dated 20.12.2005, which ultimately culminated in the execution of the sale deed dated 27.12.2005. After a plea was raised in the written statement disclosing the factum of execution of an agreement to sell between the parties on 20.12.2005, plaintiff-appellant by way of replication introduced the plea of a mortgage in respect of 1/4th share of the disputed holding. Thus the Appellate Court rightly held that in view of non-disclosure of agreement to sell in the plaint and coming up with a plea that what was executed was a mortgage-deed to borrow Rs.20,000/- from the respondent-defendant by mortgaging 1/4th share of plot no.940, the Appellate Court rightly inferred that the execution of the agreement to sell was admitted including that of the sale deed. The area sought to be sold in both the agreement and the sale-deed corresponds to 1/4th share of plot no.940 as against the sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-, out of which Rs.20,000/- was paid as earnest at the time of execution of agreement. Once the recitals in the agreement and the sale-deed mentioned the extent of area sold by plaintiff-appellant to defendant-respondent, coupled with the non-disclosure of agreement in the plaint and subsequently, setting up a plea of mortgage in replication for the first time is sufficient to doubt the veracity of the claim of plaintiff that he had not received the sale consideration in excess of 1 bigha kham. 9. The Court is of the view that the findings recorded by the Appellate Court are based on relevant and admissible evidence, to which no perversity could be demonstrated. 10. No substantial question of law arises. 11. No other plea is urged. 12. The appeal is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of C.P.C. with costs.