JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi,J.: - Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Chandel, holding brief of Sri Rajiv Chaddha learned counsel for appellant on the admission of appeal. 2. This is a plaintiff's second appeal whereby suit for cancellation of a sale deed has been dismissed. 3. Plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 04.03.1994, claiming himself to be the owner of a house with two rooms, one hall, drawing room, sehan, kitchen, bathroom and the accommodation on the first floor situate at Mohalla Phoolgarhi, Hapur, Ghaziabad. It was stated that relations between plaintiff and defendant, i.e. neighbours were cordial. The son of plaintiff, i.e., Azhar Ali was married in Delhi, and recovery proceedings were initiated by the daughter-in-law of plaintiff against her husband (Azhar Ali) for Rs.25,000/-. In recovery proceedings, Police of P.S. Hapur arrested the plaintiff on 28.02.1994 and S.H.O, concerned in league with the inlaws of his son came up with an offer that he could be let off after payment of Rs.21,000/-. Plaintiff-appellant pleaded inability to pay S.H.O, came up with an offer that he could provide a loan from defendant-respondent and in furtherance thereof a deed was executed and got registered. Plaintiff-appellant presumed the deed to be a loan document, but it turned down to be a sale deed dated 04.03.1994, hence the suit. The suit was contested on the ground that the defendants have a valid registered sale deed dated 04.03.1994 in their favour, which was voluntarily executed after receipt of consideration. The alleged story of plaintiff-appellant as regards recovery and alleged loan from defendants was denied. Both the Courts dismissed the Suit. 4. Plaintiff-appellant admitted his signatures on the alleged sale deed dated 04.03.1994 (Exhibit-Ka1). It was also not disputed that on the date of execution of the sale deed, a recovery of Rs.21,000/- against the son of plaintiff-appellant had been issued. Thus the issue before the Court was as to whether in order to satisfy recovery of Rs.21,000/-, property of the plaintiff was put to sale under a registered sale deed dated 04.03.1994 in favour of defendant or not. Once plaintiff-appellant admitted his signatures on the deed, burden was upon him to establish that it was a loan document. Registration lends authority to the execution of document. Abdul Hameed (PW-1) stated that he did not take any loan of Rs.21,000/- from defendant-respondent Sagiran. Once plaintiff-appellant admitted his signatures on the deed, burden was upon him to establish that it was a loan document. Registration lends authority to the execution of document. Abdul Hameed (PW-1) stated that he did not take any loan of Rs.21,000/- from defendant-respondent Sagiran. If any loan had been taken and document executed it must have recorded rate of interest which was to be paid. In the absence of any such disclosure in the plaint, courts below were compelled to infer that the house of the plaintiff was put to sale with a view to satisfy recovery of Rs.21,000/-. Further sale-deed bears stamps at the circle rate of Rs.63,000/-, thus sale of the house for Rs.40,000/- could not be said to be at a price, which was so low as a distress sale always attracts less value than a sale under normal circumstances. 5. Thus the Court finds that the plaintiff-appellant could not establish that the registered sale deed 04.03.1994 was an outcome of any fraud and on the contrary same appears to have been prompted by a voluntary act with a view to satisfy recovery of Rs.21,000/- issued against the son of plaintiff-appellant. The findings are based on proper appraisal of evidence, to which no perversity could be attached. 6. No substantial question of law arises. 7. The appeal is dismissed with costs.