JUDGMENT : R. Banumathi, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior dismissing the Second Appeal No.242 of 1998 dated 02.02.2006 and thereby confirming the judgment of the first appellate court. 2. It is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. Brief facts are that: Mother of respondent No.1 Beti Bai (plaintiff) filed civil suit against the appellant and his father Nonitram (defendant) for declaration of title and recovery of possession. In the plaint, it was alleged that Nonitram who was brother-in-law of Khuman Singh, was cultivating the land of Khuman Singh. Taking advantage of Khuman Singh's illiteracy and ailing condition, Nonitram got the sale deed executed on 11.05.1966. The appellant got his name mutated in the revenue record also. Beti Bai filed the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession, alleging that the sale deed was taken from Khuman Singh for a meagre price and the same is not binding on Beti Bai. 3. The trial court decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff Beti Bai and held that the sale deed is null and void; declared the respondent-plaintiff as owner of the property and ordered for recovery of possession. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the appellant filed the first appeal before the District Judge, Vidisha. The first appellate court partly allowed the appeal. The first appellate court held that the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant-defendant for the disputed land is null and void; however, so far as the house is concerned, the sale deed was found to be valid and to that extent, the judgment of the trial court was set aside. The appellant-defendants were ordered to deliver the possession of the disputed land to the respondent-plaintiffs. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred second appeal before the High Court which affirmed the judgment of the first appellate court by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Puneet Jain submitted that the sale deed dated 11.05.1966 executed by Khuman Singh in favour of the Lakhan Singh defendant was for valid consideration and the courts below erred in holding the sale deed null and void on the ground of inadequacy of consideration. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Puneet Jain submitted that the sale deed dated 11.05.1966 executed by Khuman Singh in favour of the Lakhan Singh defendant was for valid consideration and the courts below erred in holding the sale deed null and void on the ground of inadequacy of consideration. It was submitted that during his life time, Khuman Singh never challenged the validity of the sale deed; nor the mother of Beti Bai who remained alive after the death of Khuman Singh for about six years, ever challenged the sale deed and this fact was not properly appreciated by the courts below. It was contended that by one sale deed executed in favour of the appellant Lakhan Singh, one house and agricultural lands were sold. It was submitted that the first appellate court confirmed the sale deed so far as it related to the house and no appeal was filed by the respondent-plaintiffs against that part of the judgment and, therefore, this finding regarding the house will have the effect of res judicata on the agricultural land also. Learned counsel prayed for reversal of the impugned judgment. 5. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.K. Mody appearing for the respondent-plaintiffs submitted that the courts below recorded concurrent findings that Khuman Singh was an illiterate and his eyesight was also poor and Nonitram, the brother-in-law of Khuman Singh had undue influence upon Khuman Singh and got the sale deed executed in his favour. It was further submitted that the sale deed covered 94 bighas of land and a house which were said to have been sold for merely Rs. 4,000/- and having regard to the meagre sale consideration, the courts below recorded the concurrent findings that the sale deed is null and void and it cannot be interfered with. 6. Courts below recorded the concurrent findings that Nonitram got the sale deed executed for 94 bighas of land and a house for merely Rs. 4,000/-; Nonitram had himself admitted in his cross-examination that he had sold 15 bighas of land for Rs. 3,000/- and, therefore, the sale deed dated 11.05.1966 is vitiated due to inadequacy of consideration. 6. Courts below recorded the concurrent findings that Nonitram got the sale deed executed for 94 bighas of land and a house for merely Rs. 4,000/-; Nonitram had himself admitted in his cross-examination that he had sold 15 bighas of land for Rs. 3,000/- and, therefore, the sale deed dated 11.05.1966 is vitiated due to inadequacy of consideration. Courts below also recorded the concurrent findings that the eyesight of Khuman Singh was poor and that he was an illiterate and taking advantage of his position, Nonitram who was the brother-in-law of Khuman Singh got the sale deed executed in his favour. As observed by the courts below, the alleged sale deed was prepared at Basoda but was executed in Kurwai, District Vidisha which raises serious doubts about the execution of the sale deed. The findings of the first appellate court holding the validity of the sale deed, insofar as the house is concerned, will not in any way advance the case of the appellant insofar as the agricultural lands are concerned. When the courts below recorded the concurrent findings of fact which are based on evidence and material on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.