JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Instant regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 4.3.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, HP, in Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2007 affirming judgment and decree dated 10.5.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, HP in Civil Suit No. 359 of 1999 RBT No. 30 of 2007, whereby suit of the appellants-plaintiffs (herein after referred to as =plaintiffs') for declaration has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that Giano Devi (deceased plaintiff No.1) and Hem Raj plaintiff No. 2 filed a suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur for declaration that the sale deed dated 16.9.1999 (Ext. D-4) stated to have been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the respondent-defendant (herein after referred to as =defendant') in respect of suit land denoted by Khata No. 34, Khatauni No. 45, Khasra No. 286/84 measuring 2 Kanal 6 Marla as per the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1996-97 situated in Tikka Ghugan, PO Aghar, Tappa Mehalata, Tehsil and District Hamirpur to the extent of 5/23 share measuring 10 Marla is illegal, null and void being the result of fraud and misrepresentation with the consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit land in any manner whatsoever. Plaintiffs averred in the plaint that they are owners-in-possession of the suit land to the extent of 44/46 shares. Plaintiff No.1 was an illiterate and Pardanasheeni woman. Defendant approached the plaintiff with the request to sell the land measuring 5 Marla out of the suit land. Plaintiff further averred that plaintiff No.1 was to sell only 3 Marla from her share and 2 Marla from the share of her son, plaintiff No. 2, for a consideration of Rs.16,500/-. Plaintiffs averred that the plaintiffs were made to sit outside the office of the Sub Registrar Hamirpur. Papers were purchased by the defendant and the plaintiffs were told that they would be selling only 5 Marla of land. The sale deed was also got written by the defendant and contents were never explained to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs averred that the plaintiffs were made to sit outside the office of the Sub Registrar Hamirpur. Papers were purchased by the defendant and the plaintiffs were told that they would be selling only 5 Marla of land. The sale deed was also got written by the defendant and contents were never explained to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were taken inside the office of Sub Registrar Hamirpur, who also enquired from them regarding the extent of the land being sold by them and the plaintiffs specifically informed him that they were only selling 5 Marla of land. Defendant got mentioned in the sale deed that the plaintiffs had sold 10 Marla of land to the defendant, which was not correct. Plaintiffs were never explained the terms of the sale deed and plaintiff No.2 was made to consume liquor and sale deed was got executed in state of intoxication. Defendant had also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiffs but this fact was also not got incorporated in the sale deed. Suit land was worth more than Rs.50,000/-. Defendant taking advantage of the sale deed was threatening to change the nature of the suit land and to alienate the same without any right to do so as such they were compelled to file suit as referred to above. 3. Defendant by way of written statement, refuted the claim of the plaintiffs raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, estoppel and plaint being bad for want of better particulars. Defendant also denied the allegations of the plaintiffs on merits by stating that plaintiff No.1 was not a Pardanasheen woman and had been managing her affairs herself. She had sold land to different persons including the defendant in the year 1990-91. Plaintiffs had received an amount of Rs.30,000/-. The sale consideration was mentioned less in order to avoid the liability of stamp duty. Plaintiffs had utilized the amount by constructing a house and the sale was for necessity. Sale deed was executed at the instance of the plaintiffs. Whole consideration had been paid and the small amount, which was agreed to be paid at the time of attestation of mutation, remained payable, which defendant was ready and willing to pay. Sale deed was explained to the plaintiffs not only by the deed writer but also by the Sub Registrar. Defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Whole consideration had been paid and the small amount, which was agreed to be paid at the time of attestation of mutation, remained payable, which defendant was ready and willing to pay. Sale deed was explained to the plaintiffs not only by the deed writer but also by the Sub Registrar. Defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Replication was filed by the plaintiffs. Learned trial Court framed following issues on 11.1.2002: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 16.9.1999 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant is illegal, null and void as claimed? OPP 2. Whether the sale is the result of fraud and misrepresentation as alleged, if so its effect? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent prohibitory injunction as claimed? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for want of better necessary particulars as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct? OPD 7. Relief. 5. Subsequently, the learned trial Court, on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decreed dated 10.5.2007. Plaintiffs filed appeal before District Judge, Hamirpur, who also dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 4.3.2009. Hence, this regular second appeal. 6. The regular second appeal was admitted on 6.5.2010, on the following substantial question of law: ?Whether the findings of the Court below are a result of complete misreading, misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record and against the settled position of law?? 7. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate, vehemently argued that judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable and liable to be set aside. He further contended that the Courts below have miserably failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the respective parties in right perspective, as a result of which erroneous findings have been returned to the detriment of the plaintiffs. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, he invited attention of the Court to the judgments passed by the Courts below to suggest that same are against the facts, evidence and law, and as such can not be allowed to sustain. Mr. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, he invited attention of the Court to the judgments passed by the Courts below to suggest that same are against the facts, evidence and law, and as such can not be allowed to sustain. Mr. Sharma further argued that the suit of the plaintiffs has been dismissed in slipshod manner and there is no proper application of mind while analyzing the evidence, be it ocular or documentary, adduced on record by the plaintiffs. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Sharma forcefully contended that the findings of the trial Court on issues No.1,2,3 and 6 which were further upheld by the first appellate Court, are totally illegal and erroneous because there was no occasion for the trial Court to draw a presumption regarding registration of document and learned trial Court miserably failed to appreciate the cross-examination of PW-3, wherein factum regarding registration of sale deed in question was admitted. He further contended that both the Courts below have not appreciated the fact that Giano Devi was a rustic and Pardanasheen lady. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Sharma prayed for decreeing the suit after setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 8. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate, supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. Mr. Verma, while referring to the judgments of Courts below stated that a bare perusal of same suggests that same are based on correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by respective parties and as such there was no scope for interference by this Court, whatsoever, especially in view of concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by the Courts below. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Verma made this Court to peruse the evidence adduced on record by both the parities, to demonstrate that at no point of time, plaintiffs were able to prove on record that the sale deed Ext. D-4, was result of fraud and misrepresentation. Mr. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Verma made this Court to peruse the evidence adduced on record by both the parities, to demonstrate that at no point of time, plaintiffs were able to prove on record that the sale deed Ext. D-4, was result of fraud and misrepresentation. Mr. Verma, forcefully contended that the plaintiffs by making averments in the plaint, made an attempt to demonstrate that sale deed was result of fraud played upon them but if the evidence led on record is read in its entirety, it nowhere suggests that at any point of time, Hem Raj was made to consume liquor, rather it stands duly proved from the statement of Sub Registrar (DW-1A) Netar Singh that at the time of registration of sale deed, plaintiff Giano Devi was duly asked by him with regard to contents of sale deed, wherein it was written that she was selling suit land i.e. 10 Marla for total consideration of Rs.16,500/-. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Verma forcefully contended that it stands duly proved on record that sale deed was duly executed in accordance with law. Plaintiffs were not able to prove on record that the sale deed was result of fraud and misrepresentation and as such this Court has no occasion to interfere with the well reasoned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below, perusal whereof clearly suggests that both the Courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously. He also reminded this court of its limited scope of interference in the concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by both the Courts below and in this regard he placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015)4 SCC 264 . 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. 10. During proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse the pleadings as well as evidence led on record by respective parties, perusal whereof nowhere suggests that both the Courts below have misread and mis-interpreted the evidence, rather this Court after perusing the same, has no reason to differ with the findings recorded by both the courts below, which otherwise appear to be based on correct appreciation of evidence. Moreover, during the submissions having been made by Mr. Moreover, during the submissions having been made by Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, he was not able to point out any illegality or infirmity, which in turn could compel this Court to draw conclusion that the judgments passed by both the courts below are perverse. But this court solely with a view to explore answer to the substantial question of law, reproduced herein above, critically examined evidence available on record to ascertain genuineness and correctness of the claim having been put forth by the plaintiffs to reach a just and fair decision in the matter. Though the plaintiffs by making averments in the plaint made an attempt to prove that the sale deed Ext. D-4 was a result of fraud by taking advantage of the ignorance of the plaintiffs but there is no evidence led on record in this regard. Plaintiffs further claimed that plaintiff No.1, who was a pardanasheen lady had no knowledge whatsoever with regard to the contents of sale deed. Plaintiffs further claimed that plaintiff No.2 Hem Raj was made to consume liquor at the relevant time and they were made to sit outside the office of Tehsildar but no credible evidence has been led on record in this regard. 11. PW-1 Hem Raj stated that Giano Devi was his mother and they had filed suit for declaration that sale deed dated 16.9.1999 was null and void because same was obtained by defendant by playing fraud upon them. He further stated that instead of 5 Marla, 10 Marla of land was purchased, for which plaintiffs never agreed. He further stated that they were made to sit outside the office of Tehsildar but the fact remains that in his examination-in-chief, he categorically stated that they appeared before Tehsildar at 5 PM and stated that they had sold 5 Marla of land to the defendant. He further stated that contents of sale deed were not read over to them and he was made to consume liquor by playing fraud. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was a matriculate. He did not know that if some papers were purchased in the name of vendors but careful perusal of the cross-examination clearly suggests that he admitted his signatures on Ext. D1, Ext. D2 (copy of sale deed) and endorsement, Ext. D-3. He stated that he does not know the average value of land in area. He did not know that if some papers were purchased in the name of vendors but careful perusal of the cross-examination clearly suggests that he admitted his signatures on Ext. D1, Ext. D2 (copy of sale deed) and endorsement, Ext. D-3. He stated that he does not know the average value of land in area. His mother had executed Will in his favour. She had given property to his children and not to him, which compels this Court to draw inference that deceased Giano Devi did not have confidence in Hem Raj. 12. PW-2 Bidhi Singh stated that plaintiffs had consented to sell land at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per Marla but the defendant played fraud with them and purchased more land for lesser value. Registry was put up before the Sub Tehsildar at 5.00 PM and he had no time to verify the same. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was a Lambardar of area for the last 30 years. He admitted sale of suit land to defendant. He appeared as a witness of sale deed. Being Lambardar, he had appeared as witness in 500-600 cases. He admitted his signatures on Ext. D-4. He admitted that sale deed was read over by Deed Writer also. 13. Conjoint reading of evidence of plaintiffs clearly suggests that suit land was agreed to be sold by the plaintiffs to the defendant and sale deed was put before the Sub Registrar at 5 PM on 16.9.1999. Perusal of statement of PW-2 Bidhi singh clearly suggests that contents of sale deed were read over by the Deed Writer to the respective parties. Close scrutiny of aforesaid witness duly establishes that pursuant to agreement arrived at between the parties, sale deed Ext. D-4 was executed and same was placed before Sub Registrar and contents of same were read over and explained to the plaintiffs before registering the same. 14. DW-1 Dharam Dass deposed that he purchased 10 Marlas of land from plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs.16,500/- vide sale deed Ext. D-4. He further stated that sale deed was got executed by plaintiffs, Giano Devi and Hem Raj, which was read over and explained to them and thereafter Hem Raj signed the same and Giano Devi put her thumb impression on the same, admitting same to be correct. He categorically stated that aforesaid process was repeated before Sub Registrar also. D-4. He further stated that sale deed was got executed by plaintiffs, Giano Devi and Hem Raj, which was read over and explained to them and thereafter Hem Raj signed the same and Giano Devi put her thumb impression on the same, admitting same to be correct. He categorically stated that aforesaid process was repeated before Sub Registrar also. It has come in his statement that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid before Sub Registrar and balance was to be paid at the time of delivery of possession. In cross-examination, he reiterated what he stated in his examination-in-chief by stating that he had discussion with Giano Devi qua purchase of 10 Marla. He specifically denied that Hem Raj was made to consume liquor on that day. He denied the suggestion that sale deed was put before Sub Registrar in the evening. He also denied the suggestion that plaintiffs had agreed to sell only 5 Marla of land. 15. DW-1A (six DW-2) Nater Singh, Sub Registrar deposed that sale deed, Ext. D-4 was placed before him and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the vendors in his presence. He stated that he read over the sale deed to the parties, who admitted the same to be correct and then attested it. 16. DW-2 Kishore Kumar Sharma, Deed Writer, stated that he scribed the sale deed Ext. D-4 at the behest of vendors and he wrote in its whatever, he was told to write by Hem Raj and Giano Devi and they had sold suit land to the defendant for Rs.16,500/-. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not know Giano Devi, Dharam Dass and Hem Raj, personally. Giano Devi was illiterate. He feigned ignorance about the fact whether registry was placed before Sub Registrar at 5 PM. 17. DW-3 Relu Ram is marginal witness of sale deed Ext. D-4. he stated that Giano Devi and Hem Raj sold 10 Marla of land to the defendant for Rs.16,500/-. Vendors attested the sale deed in the presence of Sub Registrar, where a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid as part payment. He also signed the sale deed as marginal witness. In cross-examination, he stated that Tehsildar had come to the office on that day at about 5 PM. He stated that he does not know if Hem Raj was made to consume liquor by Dharam Dass on that day. 18. He also signed the sale deed as marginal witness. In cross-examination, he stated that Tehsildar had come to the office on that day at about 5 PM. He stated that he does not know if Hem Raj was made to consume liquor by Dharam Dass on that day. 18. DW-4 Ramesh Chand has only proved on record average value of land in the area, Ext. DW-4/A. 19. DW-5 Jagar Nath Sharma, is a Registration Clerk in the office of Tehsildar, Hamirpur. He testified that Ext. DW-5/A was true copy of sale deed No. 250 dated 19.4.2005. He also proved on record another sale deed Ext. DW-5/B and endorsement Ext. DW-5/C. He proved on record sale deed dated 17.8.1982 Ext. DW-5/D and its endorsement Ext. DW-5/E. He also proved sale deed Ext. D-4 and its endorsement Ext. DW-5/E. 20. Conjoint reading of aforesaid evidence led on record by defendant leaves no doubt that defendant successfully proved on record that sale deed Ext. D-4 was duly executed by plaintiffs namely Giano Devi and Hem Raj whereby they sold 10 Marla of land to the defendant for consideration of Rs.16,500/-. It duly stands proved on record that sale deed was registered by Sub Registrar DW-1/A, who himself stated before the Court that sale deed Ext. D-4 was placed before him and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the vendors in his presence. It has come in his statement that he read over contents of sale deed to the parties, who admitted same to be correct. There is nothing in the cross-examination of aforesaid witness from where it can be inferred that DW-1A Nater Singh falsely stated with regard to execution of sale deed. Similarly, there is nothing in his cross-examination suggestive of the fact that DW-1A who was a government servant had any motive to falsely depose against the plaintiff No.2, whereas, plaintiffs who examined himself as PW-1, placed reliance on the statement of PW-2 Bidhi Singh, who was Lambardar of area. In his cross-examination, he himself admitted that he appeared as witness of sale deed being Lambardar in 500-600 cases. There is nothing in his statement which could be sufficient for the Courts below to disbelieve the overwhelming evidence put forth by defendant to prove correctness of Ext. D-4 rather admission made by this witness in cross-examination with regard to his being witness in a number of sale deeds, speaks volumes. There is nothing in his statement which could be sufficient for the Courts below to disbelieve the overwhelming evidence put forth by defendant to prove correctness of Ext. D-4 rather admission made by this witness in cross-examination with regard to his being witness in a number of sale deeds, speaks volumes. 21. Hence, this Court, after reading entire evidence, has no hesitation to conclude that defendant by leading cogent evidence was able to prove that sale deed Ext. D-4 was executed by the plaintiffs on their own volition, after receiving major portion of payment, in the presence of Sub Registrar, who himself entered the witness box to depose that at the time of registration of sale deed, contents of same were read over the parties. 22. Hence, this Court sees no misreading or misinterpretation of evidence. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 23. This Court is fully satisfied that both the courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, in the present matter since both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings, which otherwise appear to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence, this Court has very limited jurisdiction/scope to interfere in the matter. In this regard, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant contents of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma?s case supra, wherein the Court has held as under:- ?16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs have established their right in 'A' schedule property. In the light of concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the 'A' schedule property for road and that she could not have full fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to plaintiffs' right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.? 24. Consequently, in view of aforesaid discussion, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and same is dismissed. Pending applications are also disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are also vacated.