JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.5.2008, passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.114 of 2006, affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2006, passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division) Court No.1, Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No.176 of 1999, whereby suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction and in the alternative for possession filed by the appellants-plaintiffs has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record are that appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction and in the alternative for possession against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) averring therein that plaintiff No.1 is an old, illiterate simpleton lady of 80 years and plaintiff No. 2 is her daughter, who has become saint ( "Sanyasini") for the last 20 years. Plaintiffs further averred in the plaint that defendant No.1 is her sister's son. Plaint further reveals that one Sundaru Devi filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to land comprised in khasra No.625, measuring 0-5-16 bighas, situated in village Tilli, illaqua Pachhiat, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P against the plaintiffs. Since, plaintiff No.1 was an old, illiterate lady and plaintiff No.2 being "Sanyasini" were unable to defend the said case personally and as such, requested defendant No.1 to watch their interest in the aforesaid suit. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant No.1, who was having an eye over the property of the plaintiffs, asked them to execute the General Power of Attorney in his favour. The plaintiff No.1 while reposing confidence in defendant No.1 and executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1 on 2.7.1993 at Mandi, whereas plaintiff No.2 executed similar General Power of Attorney on 30.8.1993 at Palampur, District Kangra authorizing defendant No.1 to defend the case titled "Sundaru Devi v. Durgi Devi and others. 3. Plaintiffs further averred that they were ignorant of the fact that by way of execution of General Power of Attorney, defendant No.1 can alienate and dispose of other landed property, which were not the subject matter of the suit. 3. Plaintiffs further averred that they were ignorant of the fact that by way of execution of General Power of Attorney, defendant No.1 can alienate and dispose of other landed property, which were not the subject matter of the suit. Plaintiffs further claimed that they remained under the impression and belief that defendant No.1 has been only authorised to defend them in case titled "Sundaru Devi v. Durgi Devi and others. Thereafter, defendant No.1 in connivance with the petition writer manipulated the General Power of Attorney authorizing himself for disposal of the entire property of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff also furnished detail of properties owned and possessed by them at village Tilli, Pargana Pachhiat, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, HP, details whereof are available in the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). 4. Subsequently, defendant No.1 on the basis of General Power of Attorney executed in his favour by the plaintiffs, executed two sale deeds i.e. one in the name of defendant No.2, who is his wife and other in favour of defendant No.3 vide sale deeds dated 24.12.1996 and 26.12.1998 respectively. Plaintiffs further claimed that they are in peaceful possession of the suit land, but on 27.10.1999, defendant No.1 asked them to vacate the possession and disclosed that plaintiffs are not the owners of the house as well as land as the same have been alienated in favour of defendants No.2 and 3. Lateron, on enquiries, the plaintiffs came to know about the above two sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 on the strength of General Power of Attorney executed in his favour by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were not even paid a single penny as sale consideration and as such, both the above sale deeds are false and fictitious having been executed on the basis of General Power of Attorneys, which were procured by defendant No.1 by playing fraud on the plaintiffs. 5. Defendants by way of detailed written statement refuted the claim having been put forth on behalf of the plaintiffs on the ground of maintainability, mis-joinder of parties and cause of action. On merits, defendants admitted the relationship between the parties, however, claimed that both the plaintiffs were in sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the General Power of Attorneys. On merits, defendants admitted the relationship between the parties, however, claimed that both the plaintiffs were in sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the General Power of Attorneys. Defendant No.1, specifically denied that he had an eye over the landed property of the plaintiffs. He also denied that he by taking undue advantage of General Power of Attorneys executed two sale deeds by playing fraud and concealing the true facts. Similarly, defendant No.1 also denied that plaintiffs were not aware of the sale deeds in favour of defendants No.2 and 3. Defendant No.1 further denied that on 27.10.1999, he asked the plaintiffs to vacate the house where the plaintiffs were residing. Defendants also denied the allegation of the plaintiffs that they were not paid a single penny as sale consideration in respect of the sale deeds dated 24.12.1996 and 26.12.1998 and claimed that these sale deeds are not false or fictitious, rather same were executed with the consent and consultation of the plaintiffs and at their instance and they had also received the full payment of the said consideration. 6. By way of replication, plaintiff though denied the case of the defendants in to but reasserted the claim put forth in the plaint. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the General Power of Attorney dated 2.7.1993 and 30.8.1993 alleged to be executed by plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1 are illegal, null and void being result of undue influence, misrepresentation and fraud as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the sale deeds dated 24.12.1996 and 26.12.1998 executed in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 are forged, fictitious and have been executed on the basis of General Power of Attorney which was procured by defendant No.1 by playing fraud, mis-representation, undue influence on plaintiffs, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the said sale deeds were without consideration and without delivery of possession of suit property as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled for the relief of possession as prayed for? OPP. 6. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of cause of action? OPD. 8. OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled for the relief of possession as prayed for? OPP. 6. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of cause of action? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is not property valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 9. Relief. 8. The learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs on 30.8.2006. 9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 30.8.2006, passed by learned trial Court, appellants/plaintiffs filed an appeal under Section 96 of CPC in the Court of learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal 114 of 2006, however fact remains that learned District Judge, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 27.5.2008, dismissed the appeal preferred on behalf of the plaintiffs/appellants and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. In the aforesaid background, the present appellants-plaintiffs approached this Court by way of Regular Second Appeal, praying therein for decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs after setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 10. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "(1) Whether there can be any better evidence than the admission of the party itself? If no, its effect in the present case. (2). Whether the Courts below could have reached a just and legal conclusion without considering the effect of the sale transaction made by the respondents in favour of his wife? If no, its effect. 11. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellants, vehemently argued that the judgment passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable as the same are not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. If no, its effect. 11. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellants, vehemently argued that the judgment passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable as the same are not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Sharma, while referring to the judgment passed by both the Courts below, contended that bare perusal of the same suggest that evidence led on record by the plaintiffs has not been read in its right perspective, rather same are based upon conjectures and surmises, as a result of which, great prejudice has been caused to the plaintiffs, who successfully proved on record that General Power of Attorneys were executed in favour of defendant No.1 solely authorizing him to watch and protect the interest of the plaintiffs in the suit having been filed by Sundaru Devi. 12. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Sharma, further contended that defendant No.1, Jaswant Singh himself admitted that General Power of Attorneys were given to him for contesting the case against Smt. Sundaru Devi and as such, no further evidence was required to place on record by the plaintiffs to demonstrate that General Power of Attorneys were only executed in favour of defendant No.1 to protect the interest of the plaintiffs in the civil suit filed against them by Smt. Sundaru Devi. Mr. Sharma, further contended that aforesaid aspect has been totally ignored by the Courts below, as a result of which, erroneous findings have come on record to the detriment of the plaintiffs, who were admittedly illiterate and simpleton ladies, as have been stated by all the plaintiff witnesses. Mr. Sharma, further contended that defendant No.1, Jaswant Singh by taking undue advantage of General Power of Attorneys executed in his favour by the plaintiffs executed two sale deeds i.e. one in favour of his wife and other in favour of defendant No.3. 13. Mr. Sharma, further contended that action of defendant No.1 in executing sale deed in favour of his wife i.e. defendant No.2, reflects the conduct of defendant No.1 and as such, Courts below ought to have drawn adverse inference against him while examining the correctness of the averments contained in the plaint having been filed by the plaintiffs. Mr. 13. Mr. Sharma, further contended that action of defendant No.1 in executing sale deed in favour of his wife i.e. defendant No.2, reflects the conduct of defendant No.1 and as such, Courts below ought to have drawn adverse inference against him while examining the correctness of the averments contained in the plaint having been filed by the plaintiffs. Mr. Sharma, further contended that there is nothing on record to suggests that defendant No.1 after effecting the sale deeds in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3, paid any amount towards sale consideration to the original owners of the land i.e. plaintiffs, which action on his part clearly suggests that he by taking undue advantage of illiteracy of plaintiffs got executed General Power of Attorneys in his favour by misrepresentation and fraud. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Sharma, contended that the suit having been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs deserve to be decreed after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. 14. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel representing the respondents, supported the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. Mr. Palsra, while referring to the judgment passed by both the Courts below, vehemently argued that there is no illegality and infirmity as the same are based upon correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties and as such, there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, of this Court, especially in view of the concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by courts below. While refuting the contentions having been put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Palsra, invited the attention of this Court to the statements of defendant witnesses to demonstrate that defendant No.1 successfully proved on record that General Power of Attorneys Ex.PW2/A and Ex.DA were duly executed by the plaintiffs in sound disposing state of mind in favour of defendant No.1 authorizing him to make sale/gift of immoveable and immoveable property owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and as such, there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by both the Courts below and as such, same deserve to be upheld. Mr. Mr. Palsra, while specifically referring to the statement of DW- 3, Darshan Singh Kalia, Tehsildar, contended that before registration of General Power of Attorney contents of the same were read over to the plaintiff namely Durgi Devi and as such, there is no force in the contention of the plaintiffs that General Power of Attorneys were got executed by taking undue advantage of the illiteracy of the plaintiffs. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Palsra, reminded this Court of its limited jurisdiction to re appreciate the evidence, especially when both the Courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously and have returned concurrent findings on the facts as well as law. To substantiate the aforesaid plea, Mr. Palsra, placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others v. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264 . 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 16. During the proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, perusal whereof, nowhere suggests that Courts below have not dealt with the evidence available on record in its right perspective and same has been misconstrued and misappreciated, rather close scrutiny of the evidence adduced on record by the plaintiffs, nowhere proves the claim of the plaintiffs that they had executed General Power of Attorneys in favour of defendant No.1, authorizing him only to defend/protect their interest in the case filed by one Sundaru Devi. 17. Plaintiff with a view to prove her case examined herself as PW-1 and stated that Sundaru Devi had filed a case against her and in order to pursue that case in the Court, she had executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1, Jaswant Singh. She also admitted that her daughter also gave Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1. She also stated that her house is situated over the suit land along with the cowshed. She also admitted that her house and that of the defendant is in the same village and her daughter was married in District Bilaspur, who has become "Sanyasini". She also admitted that defendant No.1 had been helping her in the litigation with Sundaru Devi. She also stated that her house is situated over the suit land along with the cowshed. She also admitted that her house and that of the defendant is in the same village and her daughter was married in District Bilaspur, who has become "Sanyasini". She also admitted that defendant No.1 had been helping her in the litigation with Sundaru Devi. Similarly, like PW- 1, PW-2 also admitted that she had visited Tehsil and she had sold the land to one Durga Singh son of Tholu and sale deed was also got executed by defendant. Aforesaid depositions having been made by PW-1 and PW-2, clearly suggest that General Power of Attorneys were executed by them in favour of defendant No.1 and same were registered in Tehsil in the presence of Registrar i.e. Tehsildar.PW-1, while admitting the execution of power of attorney stated that same was executed in favour of defendant No.1 with a sole view to protect the interest of plaintiffs in the case having been filed by the Sundaru Devi. But careful perusal of Ex.PW2/A and Ex.DA, clearly suggests that plaintiff had executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1, authorizing him to make gift/sale etc. with regard to all properties owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. Since, both the plaintiffs have admitted the execution of General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1, now question remains to be determined by this Court is whether General Power of Attorneys Ex.PW2/A and Ex.DA, were procured by defendant No.1 by taking undue advantage of illiteracy of plaintiffs or not?. Plaintiffs statements, as have been already discussed above, nowhere proves on record that aforesaid General Power of Attorneys were procured by defendant No.1 fraudulently by misrepresentation of facts. 18. Similarly, PW-2 stated that General Power of Attorney Ex.PW2/A executed by her in favour of defendant No.1 was for defending the case with Sundaru Devi and had she known that defendant would sell the land, she would not have executed the document. But fact remains that she admitted her signatures within circle 'A' in Ex.PW2/A i.e. General Power of Attorney executed in favour of defendant No.1. She also admitted that she had gone to Tehsil Palampur and Lumbardar, Joginder Singh and Prem Chand had met her in the Tehsil office. She also stated that she does not know Dilbag Singh Parmar, Advocate of Palampur. She also admitted that she had gone to Tehsil Palampur and Lumbardar, Joginder Singh and Prem Chand had met her in the Tehsil office. She also stated that she does not know Dilbag Singh Parmar, Advocate of Palampur. It has also come in his statement that document Ex.PW2/A was presented by Jaswant Singh, defendant No.1. In her cross-examination, she also admitted that before registration of said document few enquiries were made from her by the Tehsildar. 19. Other witnesses examined by plaintiffs i.e. PW-3, Partap Singh and PW-4, Jagdish, also corroborated the version put forth by the plaintiffs i.e. PW-1 and PW-2, but there is nothing in their statements which could compel this Court to draw an inference that aforesaid General Power of Attorneys were procured by defendant No.1 by misrepresentation of facts and fraud. Both the aforesaid witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 only stated that both the plaintiffs are illiterate and plaintiff No.1 is a Pardanashin lady and they only came to know about the execution of aforesaid documents in the year, 1999. But, admittedly there is nothing in their statements as well as in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, which could persuade this courts to take a view that documents Ex.PW2/A and Ex.DA were procured by fraud and misrepresentation. 20. On the other hand, if the evidence led on record by the defendants is examined and read in its entirety, it clearly suggests that defendants successfully proved on record that plaintiffs had executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1, authorizing him to effect sale, gift of the property owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. 21. DW-1, Jaswant Singh stated before the Court that plaintiff Durgi Devi is his Massi, whereas plaintiff No.2 is her daughter. He further stated that he had been cultivating the land of plaintiff No.1 after death of her husband, who had passed away 35 years back. He also corroborated the version put forth by the plaintiff that his house is hardly at a distance of 100 yards from the house of the plaintiff. He further stated that plaintiff was considering him to be her son. He also stated that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 executed General Power of Attorneys Ex. He also corroborated the version put forth by the plaintiff that his house is hardly at a distance of 100 yards from the house of the plaintiff. He further stated that plaintiff was considering him to be her son. He also stated that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 executed General Power of Attorneys Ex. PW2/A and EX.DA at Mandi and Palampur respectively in his favour, authorizing him to effect sale/gift of property owned and possessed by them cross-examination conducted upon this witness, nowhere suggests that plaintiffs were able to extract anything contrary that what he stated in his examination-in-chief. True, it is that in his cross-examination defendant No.1 specifically admitted that necessity of execution of the general power of attorney arose when Sundaru Devi had filed a case against the plaintiffs, but same may not be sufficient to conclude that at that juncture plaintiffs had executed general power of attorneys in favour of defendant No.1, authorizing him to defend/protect their interests in the civil suit having been filed by Smt. Sundaru Devi. 22. Though, plaintiffs made an attempt to prove on record that Power of Attorneys executed in favour of defendant No.1 was only for specific purpose i.e. to defend the civil Suit, but as have been observed above, perusal of documents Ex.PW2/A and Ex.DA, nowhere suggest that it was for the specific purpose. Moreover, defendants by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence in the shape of DW-3, Darshan Singh Kalia, Tehsildar, who registered general power of attorney, DW-4, Krishan Singh and DW-5, Dilbag Singh Parmar, Advocate, successfully proved on record that general power of attorneys were duly executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1, authorizing him to make the sale/gift of moveable and immoveable property of the plaintiffs. 23. DW-3, Darshan Singh Kalia, who happened to be Tehsildar, deposed that power of attorney Ex.DA was produced by Durgi Devi(plaintiff No.1) on 2.7.1993 for registration and she was identified by Dina Nath Sharma, Advocate, who was personally known to him. He further stated that he explained the contents of Ex. DA to Durgi Devi, which were accepted by her to be correct and thereafter document was registered. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know that Kaura Devi was illiterate but she had affixed thumb mark in the document. He further stated that he explained the contents of Ex. DA to Durgi Devi, which were accepted by her to be correct and thereafter document was registered. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know that Kaura Devi was illiterate but she had affixed thumb mark in the document. He specifically denied the suggestion put to him that he did not read over and explain the document to Durgi Devi. Similarly, attesting witness Krishan Lal, DW- 4 also stated that power of attorney Ex.DA was executed by Durgi Devi on 2.7.1993. He stated that Durgi Devi got scribed power of attorney on 2.7.1993 from Bhag Singh in his and in the presence of Durga Singh. He also stated that contents of power of attorney were dictated by Dina Nath, Advocate. He also deposed that contents of Power of Attorneys were read over and explained to Durgi Devi, which was accepted by her to be correct and thereafter she put her thumb impression on the same. 24. DW-5, Dilbag Singh Parmar, who is an Advocate, practising at Civil Court Palampur, stated that Kaura Devi (plaintiff No.2), who was residing at Bindrabani was personally known to him. He further stated that she came to him and he scribed the power of attorney Ex.DW5/A at her instance. He further stated that Ex.DW5/A was signed by Jogeshwar and Prem Chand, Lumbardar as witnesses, who were personally known to him. It also came in his statement that he specifically translated the contents of deed to Kaura Devi, which was accepted by her to be correct and thereafter she appended her signatures in his presence as well as in the presence of other witnesses. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not identified Kaura Devi before the sub-Registrar, but the witnesses have identified her. He denied that in connivance with Jaswant Singh, he scribed the general power of attorney. 25. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not identified Kaura Devi before the sub-Registrar, but the witnesses have identified her. He denied that in connivance with Jaswant Singh, he scribed the general power of attorney. 25. This Court, after careful perusal of the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence led on record by the respective parts, has no hesitation to conclude that defendants successfully proved on record that general power of attorneys were duly executed by the plaintiffs in sound disposing state of mind in favour of defendant No.1, authorizing him to effect the sale/gift of moveable and immoveable property owned and possessed by them and as such, there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgments passed by both the Courts below, which otherwise appears to be based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record. 26. This Court with a view to examine the genuineness and correctness of the submissions having been made by Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs that since defendants had admitted in his cross-examination that power of attorneys were executed by the plaintiff in his favour authorizing him to defend/protect their interest in the case having been filed by one Smt. Sundaru Devi, nothing more was required to be proved by the plaintiffs and as such, Courts below ought to have decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. After carefully examining the examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination conducted upon the defendant, the aforesaid contention having been made by Mr. Sharma, deserve outright rejection because aforesaid admission having been made on behalf of the defendant in his cross-examination in no manner can be termed to be admission on behalf of the defendant that plaintiffs had executed power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 only for specific purpose i.e. to defend civil suit. Careful perusal of the cross-examination conducted upon defendant, nowhere suggests that he admitted that power of attorneys were executed in his favour by the plaintiffs to protect their interest in the suit filed by Sundaru Devi, rather aforesaid admission, if any, made on the part of the defendant was only made in response to the suggestion put forth to the defendant by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that necessity of execution of power of attorney arose when Sundaru Devi filed case against the plaintiff. If, the statement having been made by defendant No.1 in his examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination is read in its entirety, it nowhere suggests that there was any admission on the part of the defendant No.1 that power of attorneys Ex.PW2/A and EX.DA were only executed for specific purpose i.e. to defend the civil suit mentioned above, rather, defendant No.1 honestly admitted that necessity of execution of power of attorneys arose when Sundaru Devi filed suit against the plaintiffs but the same cannot be read to conclude that power of attorneys were executed only for specific purpose i.e. to defend the civil suit mentioned above. 27. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that PW-1 in her statement specifically stated that since she was not in possession to walk due to old age, she gave her power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1, meaning thereby plaintiff was unable to take care of her properties and as such, she executed power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1, who happened to be son of her sister and as such, this Court sees no force in the aforesaid contention having been raised on behalf of the plaintiffs. 28. Similarly, this Court sees no force in the arguments having been advanced by Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel representing the plaintiffs that Courts below ought to have drawn adverse inference against defendants in view of the fact that on the strength of aforesaid power of attorneys executed in favour of defendant No.1 by the plaintiffs, he executed sale deed in favour of his wife. Perusal of sale deeds Ex. Ex.PB and Ex.PC brought on record by the defendants during the pendency of the first appeal before the learned First Appellate Court by moving an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC successfully proves on record that sale deeds were executed in favour of defendant No.2 by the defendant No.1 with the consent of the plaintiffs. Perusal of sale deeds Ex.PC, dated 26.12.1998, clearly suggests that sale consideration was accepted by the General Power of Attorney by defendant No.1 from defendant No.2, in whose favour sale deed was effected. Similarly, perusal of sale deed Ex. PB, suggests that consideration of sale amount was accepted by defendant No.1 on behalf of original owners i.e. plaintiffs. Perusal of sale deeds Ex.PC, dated 26.12.1998, clearly suggests that sale consideration was accepted by the General Power of Attorney by defendant No.1 from defendant No.2, in whose favour sale deed was effected. Similarly, perusal of sale deed Ex. PB, suggests that consideration of sale amount was accepted by defendant No.1 on behalf of original owners i.e. plaintiffs. Since, defendant No.1 successfully proved on record that Power of Attorneys Ex.PW2/A and Ex.DA were executed by the plaintiffs in his favour authorizing him to effect sale of property owned and possessed by the plaintiffs, no adverse inference, could be drawn by the Courts below of sale deed having been effected in favour of defendant No.2, who happened to be wife of defendant No. 1. As has been discussed above, defendant successfully proved on record that sale deeds Ex.PB and Ex.PC,were duly executed by him on behalf of the plaintiffs on the strength of general power of attorney, which stand duly proved on record and as such, this Court sees no substantial force in the arguments having been made by learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 29. This Court sees no irregularity and infirmity, if any, in the judgments passed by both the Courts below, rather same are based upon correct appreciation of the evidence available on record. 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 and Others v. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264 , herein-below: "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. 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 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." 30. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, present appeal fails and same is dismissed. Interim directions, if any, are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.