JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties on point of admission of second appeal and perused the records. 2. Original Suit No. 793/2005, Smt. Bhagwan Devi v. Smt. Brijrani and Anr., was filed for cancellation of registered sale-deed dated 30.5.2005 executed on behalf of plaintiff Bhagwan Devi in favour of defendant no. 1 Brijrani and for the relief of permanent injunction relating to land mentioned in said sale-deed. The grounds for cancellation of sale-deed mentioned in plaint were that plaintiff had not executed any sale-deed willingly and knowingly in favour of defendant no. 1 nor said sale-deed was read and explained to her, nor any consideration was paid to her for said sale-deed, and she is in possession of disputed property as owner; therefore said sale-deed be cancelled and defendant be restrained from interfering in its possession of plaintiff. 3. Defendant had filed written-statement in Original Suit No. 793/2005, by which they denied plaint averment and pleaded that said sale-deed was willingly executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant no. 1 without any misrepresentation or undue influence. Therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Another Original Suit No. 243/2006, Brijrani v. Bhagwan Devi was filed with averment that since defendant Bhagwan Devi had executed registered sale-deed dated 30.5.2005 willingly and without any undue influence, for proper consideration, therefore plaintiff Brijrani had become owner of said land; but Bhagwan Devi had challenged the rights of purchaser Brijrani, threatened to interfere in user of Brijrani Devi and also threatened that mutation would not be permitted. Therefore, Bhagwan Devi be restrained by permanent injunction from interfering in possession of plaintiff Brijrani over disputed land and crop. 5. In Original Suit No. 243/2006 defendant Bhagwan Devi had filed written-statement denying willful execution of registered sale-deed dated 30.5.2005 or obtaining the consideration of Rs. 4,59,000/- before Sub- Registrar and further pleaded that said sale-deed is liable to be cancelled, for which Original Suit No. 793/2005 had been filed by Bhagwan Devi. It was further pleaded that disputed property is in her name in revenue record but plaintiff Brijrani wants to get her rights declared over such agricultural property; therefore, suit is barred by Section 331 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Plaintiff is neither owner nor is in possession of disputed property and her suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. It was further pleaded that disputed property is in her name in revenue record but plaintiff Brijrani wants to get her rights declared over such agricultural property; therefore, suit is barred by Section 331 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Plaintiff is neither owner nor is in possession of disputed property and her suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. In both the suits, trial court had framed issues. Later on both the suits were consolidated in trial court. Original Suit No. 793/2005 was made leading case. Then after receiving evidences of the parties and after affording opportunity of hearing, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.-18, Etah had passed judgment dated 13.4.2015, by which leading Original Suit No. 793/2005 was decreed for the relief of cancellation of sale-deed and for permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff Bhagwan Devi; and the Original Suit No. 243/2006, Brijrani v. Bhagwan Devi was dismissed. Against aforesaid judgment dated 13.4.2015 of trial court, Civil Appeal No. 29/ 2015, Smt. Brijrani v. Pashupati Nath and Anr. was preferred, which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 20.10.2015 of District Judge, Etah. Aggrieved by the judgment of trial court as well as the first appellate court, present second appeal had been preferred by Smt. Brijrani (defendant of O.S. No. 793/2005 and plaintiff O.S. No. 243/2006). 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Original Suit No. 793/2005 was filed for cancellation of registered sale-deed on ground of undue influence exerted by appellant against respondent Bhagwan Devi but there was no evidence adduced that may prove any undue influence in execution of said sale-deed. He also contended that trial court had recorded statement of Smt. Bhagwan Devi (plaintiff of O.S. No. 793/2005) under Order-X, Rule-2 CPC, in which she had not stated any undue influence, therefore the judgment of two courts below regarding cancellation of said registered sale-deed on the basis of undue influence is erroneous and perverse. He also raised point of jurisdiction of trial court to decide such matter. Therefore the appeal should be admitted for being allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent side had refuted the contentions of appellant side and pleaded that issue of jurisdiction has earlier been decided by another competent court in favour of respondent. Since that matter had become final, so principle of res judicata is applicable in this matter and appellant cannot raise this point. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent side had refuted the contentions of appellant side and pleaded that issue of jurisdiction has earlier been decided by another competent court in favour of respondent. Since that matter had become final, so principle of res judicata is applicable in this matter and appellant cannot raise this point. He further contended that the cancellation of sale-deed was sought by respondent side, inter alia, on the basis of non-payment of consideration, which is proved even from the evidences of respondent Brijrani. He further contended that DW-1 had admitted the possession of appellant side over disputed land, therefore, claim of relief of permanent injunction was rightly declined by the lower courts. His contention was that in light of concurrent finding of facts, no substantial question of law arises and this appeal should not be admitted and should be dismissed in limine. 9. A persual of record reveals that main ground for cancellation of sale-deed was that plaintiff of O.S. No. 793/2005 Bhagwan Devi had not willingly executed any sale-deed in favour of appellant and had not been paid any consideration for the same. Trial court had discussed evidences of parties meticulously and gave specific finding of fact that although Bhagwan Devi had died during the course of examination but from evidences of the parties, especially the statement of appellant Brijrani, it is proved that neither draft of disputed sale-deed was read and explained to Bhagwan Devi nor any consideration was paid. Trial court had discussed other evidences and gave finding that evidence on behalf of appellant are not believable and incorrect and from the admission of DW-1 Brijrani and DW-2 Radhey Shyam, it is proved that disputed sale-deed was without consideration. Considering these facts and findings, trial court had decreed O.S. No. 793/2005. A perusal of judgment of trial court reveals that it has been passed after appreciation of evidence and after application of judicial mind, and its findings are apparently correct and acceptable. 10. A perusal of judgment of first appellate court also makes it clear that in the first appeal also facts and evidences were meticulously considered and then findings of trial court were confirmed. Apart from it, after appreciation of evidences, first appellate court had also given its own findings on a few points against appellant and in favour of respondent. 10. A perusal of judgment of first appellate court also makes it clear that in the first appeal also facts and evidences were meticulously considered and then findings of trial court were confirmed. Apart from it, after appreciation of evidences, first appellate court had also given its own findings on a few points against appellant and in favour of respondent. It had confirmed this finding of trial court that disputed sale-deed was executed by old illiterate lady Bhagwan Devi without explaining it to her, and the finding of trial court about non-payment of consideration is correct. 11. The dispute in this matter between the parties is that as to whether the disputed sale-deed in question dated 30.5.2005 was executed without explaining it to Bhagwan Devi and whether its execution was without consideration, and whether the appellant is not in possession of disputed property. These are questions of fact that can be decided on the basis of evidences as has been done by the two courts below. 12. On examination of the reasonings recorded by the trial court, which are affirmed by the learned first appellate court in first appeal, I am of the view that the judgments of the trial court as well as the first appellate court are well reasoned and are based upon proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record. No perversity or infirmity is found in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court that has been affirmed by the first appellate court to warrant interference in this appeal. No question of law much less a substantial question of law was involved in this case before the High Court. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant can be sustained. 13. In view of the above, this Court finds that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Therefore the second appeal is dismissed.