JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Both these appeals have been filed by appellants-plaintiffs against the common judgment and decree dated 26.09.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P. in Civil Appeal Nos.63/2K RBT 222/04/2000 and 65/2K RBT 223/04/2000, reversing the common judgment and decree dated 29.2.2000, passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Una, H.P. in two Civil Suits No.107 of 1992 and 169 of 1992, whereby the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs was decreed and that of the respondents-defendants was dismissed. 2. The main dispute between the parties relates to the land measuring 149 Kanals 4 Marlas and Abadi situated in Tikka Ghugan Kakrana, Tappa Thara, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, detail of which has been mentioned in the head note of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’). 3. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record, are that the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiffs’) are joint owners in possession of the suit land. It is averred by the plaintiffs that the suit property was earlier owned and possessed by Milkhi Ram, the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 and 3, who succeeded him after his death. It is further averred that plaintiff No.1 is residing in the village, whereas the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are residing at the places where they are married. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 is married in the brotherhood of plaintiff No.1 with the daughter of one Dhanna in the same village due to which he is known to the plaintiffs and he used to visit the house of plaintiff No.1, whenever he occasionally visited to the house of his in-laws. It is further alleged by the plaintiffs that after the death of husband of plaintiff No.1, defendant No.1 started visiting her house oftenly to show sympathy and to help her in the management of her property and few days before the execution of the disputed documents, he prevailed upon and induced plaintiff No.1 by showing sympathy to her to execute a power of attorney in his favour on her behalf as well as on behalf of her daughters. It is further alleged by the plaintiffs that on that day, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 had come to the house of plaintiff No.1 to inquire about her health, as she was suffering from fever. It is further alleged by the plaintiffs that on that day, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 had come to the house of plaintiff No.1 to inquire about her health, as she was suffering from fever. It is further alleged that plaintiff No.1 is a widow and other plaintiffs are rustic and illiterate ladies and they, without seeking any independent advice of their relatives, agreed to execute the general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1, who brought them to Bangana and got their thumb impressions and signatures on numerous papers without showing and explaining the contents thereof to them and they were only told by defendant No.1 and the Deed Writer that a general power of attorney for managing the property has been written. It is further alleged that the Tehsildar also did not explain the contents of the writings to them as the Deed Writer, the officials of Sub Registrar, as well as the Sub Registrar, all were connived and colluded to get the execution and attestation of documents and after about 9 or 10 months of this incident i.e. during the month of March, 1992, the defendants started interfering with a view to take forcible possession of the suit property to which the plaintiffs objected and then defendant No.1 disclosed that there are sale deeds qua suit land and agreement to sell qua Abadi in their favour on behalf of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the plaintiffs inquired the matter from the Patwari Halqua, who disclosed them that three different sale deeds and one agreement to sell had been got executed from the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that they neither executed any sale deed or agreement to sell in favour of defendants nor they executed any power of attorney in favour of defendant No.5 and nor they ever received any consideration from the defendants. So the alleged sale deeds and agreement to sell in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 by the plaintiffs as well as power of attorney in favour of defendant No.5, are the result of fraud, mis-representation, undue influence and same are without consent of the plaintiffs. In this background, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land in any manner. 4. In this background, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land in any manner. 4. Defendants by way of filing written statement contested the suit on the grounds of maintainability, mis-joinder, cause of action and locus standi. On merits, it is alleged by the defendants that the suit land and Abadi in suit have been sold by the plaintiffs to defendants No. 1 to 4 vide registered sale deeds dated 31.5.1991. The sale consideration of Rs.49,000/- for land measuring 149 Kanals 4 Marlas and Rs.40,000/- for Abadi, vide registered sale deed and agreement, has already been paid to the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs are residing in village Pandoga, which is at a distance of 30 kilometers from village Chugan, the mutation on the basis of sale deeds could not be sanctioned due to which the entries in the revenue record have not been changed. However, after the execution of sale deeds in question, the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit land. The sale deeds and the agreement in question were voluntarily executed by the plaintiffs after receipt of sale consideration and the story of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 prevailed upon and induced the plaintiffs by showing sympathy towards them is concocted and wrong. It is also denied that the aforesaid documents are result of connivance or collusion of defendants with the Deed Writer and the Sub Registrar etc. In this background, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 5. The aforesaid suit i.e. Civil Suit No.107 of 1992 was filed by the plaintiffs on 28.5.1992 and during the pendency of this suit i.e. on 2.7.1992, the defendants filed Civil Suit No.169 of 1992 against the plaintiffs for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction on the grounds that they are owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of sale deeds and agreement dated 31.5.1991. 6. This suit i.e. Civil Suit No.169 of 1992 was contested by the plaintiffs on the same grounds which were taken by them in their suit i.e. Civil Suit No.107 of 1992. In nutshell, the plaintiffs contested the suit alleging therein that the sale deeds and agreement in question are the result of fraud, undue influence, mis-representation and collusion and they are still owners in possession of the suit land. 7. In nutshell, the plaintiffs contested the suit alleging therein that the sale deeds and agreement in question are the result of fraud, undue influence, mis-representation and collusion and they are still owners in possession of the suit land. 7. Learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:- In Civil Suit No.107 of 1992 “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of declaration that they are in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the sale deed dated 31.5.91 regarding land measuring 138 Kanals for consideration of Rs.48,000/- in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 by the plaintiffs as described in item No.A(i) of the head note of the plaint is null and void as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the sale deed dated 31.5.1991 by Prito Devi plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 4 for consideration of Rs.2000/- regarding land measuring 7 Kanals 6 Marlas and sale deed dated 31.5.91 regarding land measuring 3 kanals 18 marlas for consideration of Rs.1000/- by the plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 4 is null and void as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the agreement to sell regarding Aehata Abadi referred in column (B) in the head note of the plaint for consideration of Rs.4000/- dated 31.5.91 by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 and 3 is null and void as alleged? OPP. 5. Whether the power of attorney dated 31.5.91 by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.5 is illegal and void? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as alleged? OPP. 7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD. 9. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and causes of action? OPD. 10. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi? OPD. 11. Relief. In Civil Suit No.169 of 1992 “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land ? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged in preliminary objection No.1? OPD. 4. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 5. Relief” 8. OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land ? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged in preliminary objection No.1? OPD. 4. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 5. Relief” 8. Subsequently, learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by respective parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit of the defendants. 9. Defendants Prem Singh and Others, being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs in a suit filed by them and dismissal of the suit of the defendants, preferred two separate appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal Nos.63/2K RBT 222/04/2000 and 65/2K RBT 223/04/2000. Learned Additional District Judge accepted both the appeals having been filed by the defendants and held them entitled to relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the plaintiffs permanently from interfering with the ownership as well as possession of defendants Prem Singh etc. in the suit land in any manner. 10. In the aforesaid background, plaintiffs approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court. 11. This Court admitted the instant appeals on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has acted in erroneous and perverse manner in not drawing adverse inference against respondent No.1 for not stepping into the witness box as his own witness to prove due execution, attestation and registration of the documents relied upon by the respondents and also the passing of the sale consideration? Has not the Lower Appellate Court committed grave error of law and jurisdiction in failing to properly appreciate the provisions of Evidence Act and principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in this regard? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court is vitiated on account of not determining all the questions dealt by the Trial Court especially with respect to the due execution etc. of the Sale Deeds and also obtaining the power of Attorney by fraudulent means? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court is vitiated on account of not determining all the questions dealt by the Trial Court especially with respect to the due execution etc. of the Sale Deeds and also obtaining the power of Attorney by fraudulent means? Was not it incumbent for Lower Appellate Court to have assigned good, cogent and sufficient reasons for not agreeing with the Trial Courts findings by making reference to them in the impugned judgment and decree? 3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the decree for injunction against the appellants without determining the factum of actual physical possession, especially when the Trial Court granted the decree of injunction against the appellants by holding the appellants to be in possession of the suit property?” 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Substantial Question No.2: 13. This Court, after going through the grounds of appeal as well as statements having been made by learned counsel representing the appellants-plaintiffs, deems it fit to take substantial question No.2 for consideration at first instance because, while exploring answer to the instant question, Court may have to peruse the pleadings as well as evidence on record and in this process Court may also find answer, if any, to other substantial questions of law. 14. This Court with a view to ascertain genuineness and correctness of arguments having been made by Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants-plaintiffs, that learned lower appellate Court has failed to formulate the points for determination of the disposal of the appeal, carefully perused the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court vis-à-vis issues framed by learned trial Court in suits having been filed by both the parties. 15. However, if judgment passed by learned first appellate Court is perused and read in its entirety, it certainly suggests that learned first appellate Court has touched almost every issue formulated by the learned trial Court for its adjudication. Similarly, this Court finds that learned first appellate Court, while disagreeing with the findings returned by learned trial Court qua issues involved in the matter, has dealt with each and every evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led on record by respective parties. Similarly, this Court finds that learned first appellate Court, while disagreeing with the findings returned by learned trial Court qua issues involved in the matter, has dealt with each and every evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led on record by respective parties. It also emerge from the impugned judgment passed by learned first appellate Court that though issues, as framed by trial Court, have not been taken specifically by learned first appellate Court for determination, but, each and every aspect of the matter has been dealt with carefully by learned first appellate Court, while examining the correctness of judgment passed by learned trial Court. Careful perusal of pleadings available on record suggests that in nutshell case of the plaintiff was that they are owners in possession of the suit land as per Jamabandi for the year 1983-84, situated in village Ghugan Kakrana, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, H.P. 16. Keeping in view the pleadings, as referred hereinabove, burden to prove fraud, mis-representation and undue influence, allegedly exercised by defendants on plaintiffs at the time of execution of sale deeds dated 31.5.1991, was upon the plaintiffs. But this Court, after carefully examining the evidence led on record, sees substantial force in the arguments, having been made by Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel representing the defendants, that there is no direct evidence of fraud as alleged by plaintiff Smt. Bhambo Devi. 17. In the instant appeal, the case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1 is an old, illiterate widow having no son and residing alone in the village as both of her daughters were already married and residing in their in-laws houses and defendant No.1, taking advantage of position of plaintiff No.1, induced her as well as her daughters to execute general power of attorney to manage her land, but this Court was unable to lay its hand to evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led on record by the plaintiffs, suggestive of the fact that in what manner plaintiffs were induced by defendant No.1 to execute sale deeds Ex.PW-3/A to Ex.PW- 3/C and agreement Ex.DW-1/D. 18. Smt. Bhambo Devi, while appearing as PW-1, has stated that her husband died seven years back and during his life time there was a case about ceiling of land at Una, which was in progress even after his death. Smt. Bhambo Devi, while appearing as PW-1, has stated that her husband died seven years back and during his life time there was a case about ceiling of land at Una, which was in progress even after his death. PW-1 further stated that defendant No.1 induced her to give power of attorney to him in order to look after the property. But, if plaint, as having been filed by the plaintiffs, is carefully perused, there is no mention of aforesaid fact as disclosed by the plaintiffs during her examination-in-chief. Plaintiffs in para-4 of the plaint stated that defendants induced them to execute a general power of attorney for management of their properties and they, being rustic, illiterate ladies, agreed to execute the general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 without seeking any independent advice from their relatives. Similarly, PW-1 in her statement before Court stated that defendant No.1 by alluring all of them brought to Bangana in the house of someone and lateron they came to know that it was the house of the Tehsildar, wherein his family used to reside. Plaintiffs further stated that Tehsildar, Bangana took their thumb impression on some papers in his house, but if averments contained in plaint are perused, that are totally contrary to the aforesaid statement. Plaintiffs in their plaint have stated that defendant No.1 brought them to Bangana and got their thumb impression and signatures respectively on numerous papers, without showing the contents and explaining the same to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further stated in the plaint that they were made to sit away from the place of sitting of the deed writer and they were told by defendant No.1 and the deed writer that a general power of attorney for managing the property has been written. Careful perusal of averments contained in plaint totally belies the aforesaid stand adopted by the plaintiffs before the Court that Tehsildar, Bangana took their thumb impression on some papers in his house. 19. In view of above, this Court is in agreement with the contention having been made by Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel representing the defendants that how the plaintiffs could omit to mention aforesaid material facts in the pleadings. 19. In view of above, this Court is in agreement with the contention having been made by Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel representing the defendants that how the plaintiffs could omit to mention aforesaid material facts in the pleadings. Similarly, apart from bald statement in the plaint that defendant No.1 used to visit the house of plaintiff No.1, there is no evidence led on record by the plaintiffs suggestive of the fact that the plaintiffs were induced by defendant No.1 to execute documents Ex.PW-3/A to Ex.PW-3/C. Similarly, perusal of pleadings adduced on record by the plaintiffs itself suggests that at the time of execution of documents in question, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 had come to village to enquire about the health of their mother, but it is not understood that in what manner and at what time they were persuaded/induced by the defendant No.1 to execute power of attorney in his favour. As has been observed above, there is no direct evidence available on record to support the contention with regard to inducement, if any, by defendant No.1. Similarly, this Court finds averments in the plaint with regard to connivance of defendant No.1 with the deed writer, official of the Sub Registrar and the Sub Registrar, who allegedly connived to get the execution and attestation etc. of the sale deed as well as agreement to sell, but, there is no evidence, as such, on record to prove the aforesaid allegation. Since there is/was a specific allegation of fraud, undue influence and connivance of aforesaid defendant No.1 with aforesaid officials, plaintiff was expected to lead on record cogent and convincing evidence suggestive of the fact that sale deeds Ex.PW-3/A to Ex.PW-3/C and agreement to sell Ex.DW-1/D were result of fraud, mis-representation and undue influence. 20. Plaintiff No.1, apart from herself, also examined PW-2 Kewal Krishan i.e. the official of Sub Treasury, Bangana, to prove that stamp papers worth Rs.5760/- were purchased from the Treasury on 31.5.1991 by Sh. Roshan Lal, Stamp Vendor, Bangana. PW-3 Kamal Raj, who happened to be Registration Clerk in the office of Sub Registrar, Bangana, proved the certified copies of the sale deeds Ex.tPW-3/A to Ex.PW-3/C. PW-4 Roshan Lal is the stamp vender, Bangana. PW-5 is the Record Keeper, who produced the case file titled State vs. Amar Chand etc. Roshan Lal, Stamp Vendor, Bangana. PW-3 Kamal Raj, who happened to be Registration Clerk in the office of Sub Registrar, Bangana, proved the certified copies of the sale deeds Ex.tPW-3/A to Ex.PW-3/C. PW-4 Roshan Lal is the stamp vender, Bangana. PW-5 is the Record Keeper, who produced the case file titled State vs. Amar Chand etc. in the Court to prove the documents Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-6/B i.e. the statements of Prem Chand and Roshan Lal recorded in that case. PW-6 is the then Civil Ahlmad in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Una, who identified the signatures of the then Presiding Officer on the statements Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-6/B. But, interestingly plaintiffs No.2 and 3, who could be a material evidence to prove allegation of inducement, if any, by defendant No.1 chose not to enter the witness box and as such allegation made in the plaint by plaintiffs that they were induced by defendant No.1 cannot be said to be proved. Had plaintiffs No.2 and 3 entered witness box and corroborated the version put forth by PW-1 Smt. Bhambo Devi that they were induced to sign on the alleged papers by defendant No.1 to execute a general power of attorney for management of properties, reliance, if any, could be placed on the statement of PW-1. 21. Similarly, though as per averments contained in the plaint, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 were present when defendant No.1 got their thumb impressions and signatures on numerous papers without showing contents and explaining the same to the plaintiffs, but there is no corroboration as such by plaintiffs No.2 and 3, since they have failed to enter witness box. Plaintiffs also claimed themselves to be rustic, illiterate villagers, but unfortunately there is no evidence led on record by them to substantiate their aforesaid claim. Similarly, no evidence worth the name has been led on record by plaintiffs suggestive of the fact that complaint, if any, was lodged by them to the police with regard to aforesaid incident. 22. PW-2 Kewal Krishan i.e. Clerk in the office of Sub Treasury, Bangana, stated that on 31.5.1991 stamp paper amounting to Rs.5760/- has been purchased by Roshan Lal, Stamp Vendor, Bangana. He has stated that Roshan Lal had signed in the register as well as the forms, but there was no authority letter from Prito Devi etc. 22. PW-2 Kewal Krishan i.e. Clerk in the office of Sub Treasury, Bangana, stated that on 31.5.1991 stamp paper amounting to Rs.5760/- has been purchased by Roshan Lal, Stamp Vendor, Bangana. He has stated that Roshan Lal had signed in the register as well as the forms, but there was no authority letter from Prito Devi etc. Similarly, PW-3 Kamal Raj i.e. Registration Clerk in the office of Sub Registrar, Bangana stated that Ex.PW-3/A to Ex.PW- 3/C are the certified copies of the original register which have been issued by the office. PW-4 Roshan Lal, Stamp Vendor, stated that challan form dated 31.5.1991 bears his signatures and he got issued stamp papers worth Rs.5760/- from the treasury for the purpose of getting sale deed executed from Smt. Prito Devi. He admitted that he had no power of attorney to withdraw the stamp paper on her behalf. However, he specifically denied the suggestion put to him that he got the stamp papers from the treasury at the instance of Mr. Nanda, Tehsildar-cum-Sub Registrar, Bangana and the defendants. Rather, he stated that he had entered the stamp papers at Sr.No.148, dated 31.5.1991 of Rs.3/- in the name of Prito Devi and similarly at Sr.No.149, on the same date the entry of stamp paper of Rs.3/- in favour of Prito Devi has been made and both the stamp papers were purchased for the purpose of special power of attorney. He admitted that the name of the vendor has not been written against the thumb impression. He also admitted that there is also an entry at Sr.No.161 dated 31.5.1991 for purchase of stamp paper of Rs.3/- for special power of attorney of Bhambo Devi. He had not written the name of the person, against the thumb impression, who had purchased the stamps. However, he specifically denied that he had scribed the sale deed in dispute in connivance with the Sub Registrar and had also sold the papers which were purchased by him from the treasury, at their instance. 23. Plaintiffs by way of citing PW-2 to PW-6 made an attempt to prove on record that stamp papers were not drawn from the treasury by PW-4 Roshan Lal on the instructions of plaintiffs, rather those were procured in their names by defendant No.1, while conniving with the Sub Registrar and his officials. 24. 23. Plaintiffs by way of citing PW-2 to PW-6 made an attempt to prove on record that stamp papers were not drawn from the treasury by PW-4 Roshan Lal on the instructions of plaintiffs, rather those were procured in their names by defendant No.1, while conniving with the Sub Registrar and his officials. 24. DW-1 Sansar Chand i.e. Scribe of documents Ex.DW-1/A to DW-1/C and agreement Ex.DW-1/D specifically stated before the Court that he had written aforesaid documents at the instance of the plaintiff. He further stated that after writing these documents he had read over the contents of the same to the plaintiffs, who, after admitting the contents of the same to be correct, put their thumb impression/signatures on these documents. It has also come in his statement that vendors had agreed to have received Rs.51,000/- at home, whereas amount of agreement i.e. Rs.40,000/- was paid in his presence. This Court also perused cross-examination conducted on this witness by plaintiffs, but perusal of same suggests that the plaintiffs were not able to extract anything contrary what he has stated in his examination-in-chief. 25. DW-2 Chottu Ram also stated that parties are known to him and about six years back plaintiffs Bhambo etc. had sold the land to the defendants. He stated that at the time of this deal, he was ploughing his field, from where he was called by plaintiffs Bhambo Devi etc. and in his presence defendant No.1 Prem Chand had given Rs.51,000/- to Bhambo and her daughters Prito and Vijay Kumari. He also stated that at the time of aforesaid transaction, sons-inlaw of Bhambo; namely; Sarwan and Bhajana were also present. In his cross-examination though he admitted that he is not a Pradhan, Panch or Lamberdar of the village, but admittedly, there is nothing in his cross-examination, from where it can be inferred that defendants and the plaintiffs were able to extract anything contrary what he stated in his examination-in-chief. 26. DW-3 Roshan Lal also stated that he is an attesting witness to documents Ex.DW-1/A to Ex.DW-1/D and Ex.DW-3/A. He further stated that documents, referred hereinabove, were written by Sansar Chand, Deed Writer at the instance of Prito Devi etc. in favour of defendants Prem Chand and others. 26. DW-3 Roshan Lal also stated that he is an attesting witness to documents Ex.DW-1/A to Ex.DW-1/D and Ex.DW-3/A. He further stated that documents, referred hereinabove, were written by Sansar Chand, Deed Writer at the instance of Prito Devi etc. in favour of defendants Prem Chand and others. He also stated that after writing the documents, the same were read over to Prito Devi etc., who appended their signatures and thumb impressions on the same after ascertaining the correctness and genuineness of the documents in his presence. He has also stated that thereafter he signed the documents. It has also come in his statement that Prito Devi etc. had already received the sale consideration and the payment was not made in his presence. But, if the statement of aforesaid witness is read carefully, it has come in his statement that Rs.40,000/- qua sale consideration of the agreement was paid in his presence. Similarly, careful perusal of cross-examination conducted on this witness, nowhere suggests that defendants were able to shatter the stand taken by him in the examination-in-chief. If the statements of defendants witnesses, as have been discussed above, are read conjectively, this Court sees no reason to differ with the findings returned by the first appellate Court. 27. Now, this Court would be adverting to the another factor, which weighed heavily with the leaned trial Court that defendant No.1 succeeded in inducing the plaintiffs to execute general power of attorney in his favour taking advantage of their being illiterate and rustic villagers, this Court finds from the record that defendants have successfully proved on record that prior to transaction in question, plaintiffs had also sold land to persons like Sarwan, Pritam and Bantu etc. It has come in the statement of DW-2 Chhotu Ram, who happened to be resident of same village, that Smt. Bhambo Devi and her daughters sold 600 Kanals of land for a consideration of Rs.6000/- to the above named person about 2-3 years prior to this sale. It has also come in his statement that the plaintiffs were owners of about 1100-1150 Kanals of land and they have sold the entire land. It has also come in his statement that the plaintiffs were owners of about 1100-1150 Kanals of land and they have sold the entire land. This Court, after perusing the aforesaid statement of DW-2, which certainly remained un-rebutted in his cross-examination, finds force in the submissions having been made by Shri R.P. Singh, learned counsel representing the defendants, that it stands duly established on record that since plaintiff No.1 had no male issue and her two daughters were also residing in some other village and as such they were making sale of land prior to the sale deed in question. Hence, without there being any convincing evidence led on record by the plaintiffs, it is difficult to accept that defendants, taking advantage of plaintiffs being rustic and illiterate villagers, induced them to sign on the documents in question. Similarly, perusal of sale deed in question clearly suggests that there is recital with regard to the payment of sale consideration made by defendant No.2 to the plaintiffs at home, which fact stands duly corroborated by the statement of DW-2 Chhotu Ram. This Court also sees no infirmity and illegality in the findings returned by first appellate Court that there is nothing unusual in purchasing of stamp papers by the deed writer in the name of plaintiff Prito Devi etc. 28. Leaving everything aside, it is own case of the plaintiffs that they were taken to Bangana by the defendants for the purpose of executing general power of attorney, meaning thereby that they had agreed to execute general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 and for which purpose stamp papers of same value were required to be purchased. When plaintiffs claimed themselves to be illiterate, it can be inferred that they must have authorized defendants to purchase stamp papers on their behalf for executing general power of attorney. Otherwise, also it has come in the statement of stamp vender Roshan Lal that he had withdrawn the stamp papers from the treasury, as he was asked to do to so by the vendee. As far as purchase of three stamp papers worth Rs.3/- each is concerned, explanation has been rendered by PW-4 that those were purchased for the purpose of executing general power of attorney to get the mutation attested in the name of vendees as the vendors were residing outside. 29. As far as purchase of three stamp papers worth Rs.3/- each is concerned, explanation has been rendered by PW-4 that those were purchased for the purpose of executing general power of attorney to get the mutation attested in the name of vendees as the vendors were residing outside. 29. Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants-plaintiffs, also invited the attention of this Court to the suggestion made to PW-1 by the defendants during her cross-examination that she had received Rs.1,50,000/- from defendant No.1, to demonstrate that this suggestion was totally in contradiction with the statement made by DW-2 Chhotu Ram, who had stated that payment of Rs.51,000/- was made to the plaintiffs in his presence. True, it is, that suggestion has been made to plaintiff that she had received Rs.1,50,000/- from defendant No.1, but same may not be sufficient to falsify the statement of DW-2 Chhotu Ram, who categorically stated that payment of Rs.51,000/- was made to the plaintiffs in his presence. Even case of defendants before the Court is/was that they had made payment of Rs.51,000/- to the plaintiffs at their house in the presence of DW-2 Chhotu Ram and as such learned first appellate Court rightly concluded after carefully examining the documents available on record that suggestion appears to have been made either due to mistake of counsel or same has been recorded wrongly on the part of the person recording the evidence in the Court at the relevant time. 30. This Court, after having carefully examined the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court vis-à-vis issues framed by the learned trial Court, sees no force much less substantial in the arguments having been made by Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants-plaintiffs, that learned first appellate Court failed to decide various issues framed in the suit, which were ultimately disposed of by a common judgment. Rather, perusal of impugned judgment passed by first appellate Court clearly suggests that it has dealt with every issue meticulously taking in to consideration evidence led on record by respective parties in detail and has appreciated the same in its right perspective and as such this Court is not persuaded to conclude that there has been mis-appreciation, mis-reading and mis-interpretation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. 31. 31. Otherwise also perusal of impugned judgment suggests that the learned first appellate Court, after taking note of the arguments having been made by learned counsel representing the parties before him as well as pleadings and evidence on record, proceeded to examine the controversy at hand with the clear thought that burden to prove fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence etc., if any, by defendant No.1 is/was upon the plaintiffs and after having carefully appreciated the evidence on record, rightly came to conclusion that plaintiffs have not been able to discharge the burden placed upon them; meaning thereby that the learned first appellate Court, while disagreeing with the findings returned by the learned trial Court, has carefully analyzed/examined and re-appreciated the evidence to arrive at the conclusion that the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court are not sustainable. 32. Similarly, plaintiffs themselves claimed that they were taken to the house of Tehsildar, who took their thumb impression on some papers in his house. But, as has been observed above, no positive evidence worth name has been led on record to prove factum, if any, of inducement by the defendants, rather, evidence available on record proves that the plaintiffs executed documents sale deeds Ex.DW-3/A to Ex/DW-3/C in favour of defendants. Though plaintiffs have leveled allegations of connivance and collusion of defendants with scribe, Tehsildar, Sub Registrar, but there is no evidence, as such, on record, which could persuade this Court to accept aforesaid stand adopted by the plaintiffs. The endorsement made by the Sub Registrar on all the sale deeds that no payment has been made in his presence weighed heavily with the trial Court to conclude that no payment was made to the plaintiffs by the defendants. But, perusal of evidence adduced on record by the defendants proves beyond doubt that consideration was paid to the plaintiffs. Moreover, it is not understood what was the basis for trial Court to conclude that there was no intention to sell the land on behalf of the plaintiffs and whole of the transaction was manipulated by the defendants in collusion with the stamp vendor, Sub Registrar and marginal witnesses because no evidence is available on record to prove aforesaid findings returned by the trial Court. Similarly, it is not understood that when it has specifically come on record that contents of the sale deed were read over and explained to the plaintiffs in the presence of Sub Registrar and plaintiffs, after admitting the same to be correct, appended thumb impression as well as signatures and as such there was no scope for the trial Court to conclude that Sub Registrar should have conducted proper inquiry about the payment and proper opportunity should have been afforded to the plaintiffs. Substantial question No.2 is answered accordingly. Substantial Question No.1: 33. Now, this Court would be adverting to substantial question No.1. Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned lower appellate Court ought to have drawn adverse inference against respondent No.1 for not stepping into witness box. As per Mr. Gupta, respondent No1 should have examined himself to prove due execution, attestation and registration of documents relied upon by defendants and especially passing of the sale consideration. Mr. Gupta, contended that learned appellate Court, while ignoring the aforesaid material discrepancy, whereby defendant No.1 omitted to appear in witness box, has committed error of law and jurisdiction, especially, in view of provisions of Indian Evidence Act and principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard. 34. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that since allegation of fraud, mis-representation and undue influence etc. exercised on plaintiffs was made by plaintiffs, initial burden to prove the same was upon the plaintiffs, which, apparently, in view of discussion made hereinabove, the plaintiffs have failed to discharge. There is ample material available on record suggestive of the fact that defendants successfully proved on record that the documents Ex.PW-3/A to Ex.PW-3/C were executed by plaintiffs in the office of Sub Registrar and they had received consideration i.e. Rs.51,000/- before scribing of documents and Rs.41,000/- at the time of scribing/registration of sale deed. 35. In the instant case, though the plaintiffs made an endeavour to prove on record by way of leading evidence, as has been discussed above, that no sale consideration was paid to them, as mentioned in the documents in question, but it clearly emerge from the recital of the documents in question that an amount of Rs.51,000/- was paid at home and Rs.41,000/- were paid at the time of scribe/registration of sale deed. Otherwise also, as has been rightly held by first appellate Court while placing reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court as well as Supreme Court that payment of price at the time of execution of the sale deeds is not sinequa- non to complete the sale. Adverse inference, if any, on account of abstention of defendant No.1 to appear in Court could only be drawn by first appellate Court, had defendants failed to prove on record execution of sale deed Ex.PW-3/A to Ex.PW-3/C and agreement Ex.DW-1/D by plaintiffs, more particularly, passing of consideration. But, in the instant case, when the defendants, by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence, have successfully proved on record that sale deeds Ex.DW-3/A to Ex/DW-3/C were executed by the plaintiffs of their own free will after receiving consideration, absence/omission, if any, of defendant No.1, from entering witness box could not be a factor sufficient to persuade the Court below to draw adverse inference against him. 36. Learned trial Court, while drawing adverse inference against defendant No.1 Prem Singh, has concluded that since defendant No.1 Prem Singh has not stepped into witness box to claim that he had made payment and the plaintiffs have got the sale deeds executed at their own free will, adverse inference ought to have been drawn against him. Aforesaid finding returned by the learned trial Court does not appear to be sustainable, especially, in view of the positive evidence led on record by the defendants to prove that consideration was made to the plaintiffs and they got the sale deeds executed of their own will. All the defendants witnesses, whose testimony has remained un-shattered, have categorically proved on record that payment was made in their presence to the plaintiffs and they had appended their thumb impression and signatures on sale deeds as well as agreement to sell in their presence. 37. As per settled law, adverse inference, if any, can be drawn against a party for not appearing in the Court when there is no other evidence available on record to prove issue in question. 37. As per settled law, adverse inference, if any, can be drawn against a party for not appearing in the Court when there is no other evidence available on record to prove issue in question. In the instant case, onus was upon the plaintiffs to prove that sale deeds Ex.PW-3/A to Ex.PW-3/C are the result of fraud, mis-representation and no consideration was passed to them and as such omission on the part of defendant No.1 to enter into witness box to prove his claim, which he otherwise proved beyond reasonable doubt by way of other evidence, was not a circumstance, which could compel Court below to draw adverse inference against him. 38. Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants, placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rattan Dev vs. Pasam Devi, (2002)7 SCC 441 , to suggest that the appellate Court was bound to apply its mind to all the evidence available on record and then test the legality of the findings arrived at by the trial Court. While referring to the instant judgment, learned counsel also concluded that withholding of party/ defendant himself from the witness box and thereby denying the plaintiff an opportunity for cross-examination of himself results in an adverse inference to be drawn against the defendant. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition of law that withholding of plaintiff/defendant himself/herself from the witness box and thereby denying the plaintiff/defendant an opportunity of cross-examination of himself/herself, an adverse inference is required to be drawn against the plaintiff or defendant but in the above cited case Hon’ble Apex Court while taking note of its own judgment passed by it in Iswar Bhai C. Patel vs. Harihar Behera, (1999)3 SCC 457 , wherein it has been held that “withholding of the plaintiff himself from the witness box and thereby denying the defendant an opportunity for cross-examination of himself results into an adverse inference being drawn against the plaintiff. That proposition of law is undoubtable. However, as we have already said, that is a fact to be kept in view and taken in to consideration by the Appellate Court while appreciating other oral and documentary evidence available on record. That proposition of law is undoubtable. However, as we have already said, that is a fact to be kept in view and taken in to consideration by the Appellate Court while appreciating other oral and documentary evidence available on record. May be, that from other evidence - oral and documentary - produced by plaintiff, or otherwise brought on record, the plaintiff has been able to discharge the onus which lay on him, and, subject to the court forming that opinion, a mere abstention of plaintiff himself from the witness box may pale into insignificance.” Relevant paras of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rattan Dev’s case supra are as under:- “3. A perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court shows that the plaintiff-appellant did not appear in the witness box although his special power of attorney and other witnesses were examined by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court influenced by the non-examination of the plaintiff drew an adverse inference against him and directed the suit to be dismissed solely on the ground of non-examination of the plaintiff. The judgment of the First Appellate Court shows that other evidence, though available on record, did not receive the attention of the First Appellate Court at all. 4. In our opinion, the First Appellate Court was bound to apply its mind to all the evidence available on record and then test the legality of the findings arrived at by the Trial Court. While doing so, the First Appellate Court could have taken the factum of the non-examination of the plaintiff also into consideration. The manner in which the appeal has been disposed of by the First Appellate Court cannot be said to be satisfactory. Non- application of mind by the Appellate Court to other material, though available, and consequent failure of the Appellate Court to discharge its judicial obligation, did raise a question of law having a substantial impact on the rights of the parties, and therefore, the second appeal deserved to be heard on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Ishwar Bhai. C. Patel v. Harihar Behera & Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 457 wherein this Court has emphasised that withholding of the plaintiff himself from the witness box and thereby denying the defendant an opportunity for cross-examination of himself results into an adverse inference being drawn against the plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Ishwar Bhai. C. Patel v. Harihar Behera & Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 457 wherein this Court has emphasised that withholding of the plaintiff himself from the witness box and thereby denying the defendant an opportunity for cross-examination of himself results into an adverse inference being drawn against the plaintiff. That proposition of law is undoubtable. However, as we have already said, that is a fact to be kept in view and taken in to consideration by the Appellate Court while appreciating other oral and documentary evidence available on record. May be, that from other evidence - oral and documentary - produced by plaintiff, or otherwise brought on record, the plaintiff has been able to discharge the onus which lay on him, and, subject to the court forming that opinion, a mere abstention of plaintiff himself from the witness box may pale into insignificance.” (pp.442-443) 39. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court clearly suggests that whether withholding of plaintiff/defendant himself from the witness box would result into an adverse inference against party or not would be decided by the Court taking into consideration other oral and documentary evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. 40. In the present case, as has been discussed above, defendants have successfully proved from the evidence on record, be it ocular or documentary, that sale deeds Ex.PW-3/A to Exs.PW-3/C and agreement to sell Ex.DW-1/A were duly executed in accordance with law by the plaintiffs of their own free will and consideration was also passed and as such there was no occasion for the first appellate Court to draw adverse inference against the defendants merely on the ground that he failed to enter witness box. 41. Learned counsel representing the plaintiffsappellants also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Bhop Ram vs. Dharam Das, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 560, to suggest that old age, illiteracy and backwardness were required to be taken into consideration by the Court below, especially, in view of evidence adduced on record by the plaintiffs suggestive of the fact that they had not understood the nature of transaction proposed to be made by those documents on which they appended their thumb impressions and signatures respectively. In the case, referred hereinabove, this Court, while placing reliance upon the decision in Shri Kripa Ram and others vs. Smt.Maina, 2002(2) Shim.L.C. 213 , though reiterated that where a person admits execution of an instrument before the Registrar after the document has been explained to him, he cannot subsequently plead that he was ignorant to the nature of the transaction. But, in view of facts and circumstances involved in the case, which was being decided by this Court, this Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff has been duped in that case. It would be relevant to reproduce para-12 of the judgment, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held:- “12. Reliance is placed on decision of this Court in Shri Kripa Ram and Others vs. Smt. Maina, 2002(2) Shim.L.C. 213 . In that case, this Court relying upon the decision of the Privy Council in Sennimalai Goundan and another vs. Sellappa Goundan and others, AIR 1929 PC 81 , interpreting the provisions of Section 60(2) of the Registration Act read with Section 115 of the Evidence Act held that where a person admits execution of an instrument before the Registrar after the document has been explained to him, he cannot subsequently plead that he was ignorant to the nature of the transaction. The decision relied upon also follows the judgment of this Court in Kanwarani Madna Vati and another vs. Raghunath Singh and others, AIR 1976 HP 41 . Prima facie, this argument seems attractive but on consideration of the facts on record, this submission cannot be accepted. The evidence on record and proved facts are consistent only with one conclusion and that is that the plaintiff has been duped. The cumulative effect of the established facts, namely, illiteracy of the plaintiff, non-payment of the consideration money and material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses of the defendant are all sufficient to rebut the presumption so invoked by the defendant. No sale consideration was either paid by the defendant or received by him before the Registrar. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Court had held that the endorsement was clear not only regarding the presentation of the deed before the Registrar but the fact that payment of the consideration had been admitted and that the document had infact been read over and explained to the executant. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Court had held that the endorsement was clear not only regarding the presentation of the deed before the Registrar but the fact that payment of the consideration had been admitted and that the document had infact been read over and explained to the executant. Moreover, the presumption under Section 60 ibid is not irrebutable. Old age, illiteracy and backwardness, were facts which placed a special cloak of protection around the plaintiff. There is nothing on the record to suggest or show that the plaintiff had infact understood the nature of the transaction or that he was ad-idem with what he was transferring. The conduct of the plaintiff revoking the transaction vide Ex.PW-3/A within a period of five days and in the absence of evidence that during this time he had been prevailed upon by any other person for extraneous consideration to revoke the transaction, the findings of both the Courts below that in-fact no consideration had passed, were all factors which would render the presumption attached to Ex.DA as having been negatived. All these facts were consistent with only one conclusion that is, that the mind of the plaintiff was not ad-idem with the purported transaction.” (pp.567-568) 42. Perusal of aforesaid judgment clearly suggests that learned Court, while concluding that plaintiff in that case had been duped, reiterated the law laid down by Privy Council in Sennimalai Goundan and another vs. Sellappa Goundan and others, AIR 1929 PC 81 , wherein it has been held that provisions of Section 60(2) of the Registration Act read with Section 115 of the Evidence Act provides that where a person admits execution of an instrument before the Registrar after the document has been explained to him, he cannot subsequently plead that he was ignorant to the nature of the transaction. Facts as well as evidence, in the case which came to be decided by coordinate Bench of this Court in Bhop Ram’s case supra are altogether different, cumulative effect of which, as per wisdom of that Court, was that the plaintiff has been duped. Facts as well as evidence, in the case which came to be decided by coordinate Bench of this Court in Bhop Ram’s case supra are altogether different, cumulative effect of which, as per wisdom of that Court, was that the plaintiff has been duped. Aforesaid judgment, as relied upon by learned counsel representing the appellant, cannot be made applicable in the instant case, rather in aforesaid judgments it has laid down that provisions of Order 6 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandate that the particulars necessary for establishing fraud must be clearly stated in the pleadings and general allegations of fraud are not sufficient compliance of this requirement. 43. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Tokha vs. Smt.Biru and Others, 2002(3) Shim.L.C. 101 , in support of his contention that the learned first appellate Court has failed to draw adverse inference on account of failure of defendants in stepping into the witness box. The Court held as under: “25. In Rattan Dev v. Pasam Devi, (2002)7 SCC 441 , the Supreme Court has held that the proposition of law laid down in Ishwar Bhai C. Patel v. Harihar Behera and another, is undoubtable wherein it has been emphasized that withholding of the plaintiff himself from the witness box and thereby denying the defendant an opportunity for cross-examination of himself results in an adverse inference being drawn against the plaintiff. 26. Since the plaintiff has failed to step in the witness box, an adverse inference has to be drawn against her and as such she cannot be said to be entitled for relief sought for in the suit. The other evidence adduced by the plaintiff does not support the case of the plaintiff that she was not at all maintained by the defendants. The finding of the first appellate Court which is to the contrary is liable to be set aside.” (p.108) 44. Lastly, reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pandurang Jivaji Apte vs. Ramchandra Gangadhar Ashtekar (dead) by LRs. And others, AIR 1981 SC 2235 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held: “13. The finding of the first appellate Court which is to the contrary is liable to be set aside.” (p.108) 44. Lastly, reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pandurang Jivaji Apte vs. Ramchandra Gangadhar Ashtekar (dead) by LRs. And others, AIR 1981 SC 2235 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held: “13. In the agreement dated December 29, 1958 between the decree-holder and the judgment debtor, Ext 58, there is a clear reference to the amounts due to Apte from the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder had full knowledge of the dues of Apte. Apart from the dues of Apte there were other dues also to be paid by the judgment-debtor. If according to the judgment-debtor himself the amount of Rs. 46,000 which was due to Apte, had not been cleared off even by the sale of the property to Bavdekar the decree-holder could not proceed against the property in the hands of Bavdekar. The attachment of the property at the instance of the decree-holder was only subject to the lien of Apte and unless the entire amount due to Apte was cleared off the decree-holder could not proceed against the property in the hands of the purchaser, Bavdekar. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the two courts below that the amount of Rs. 46,000 and odd was due to Apte from the judgment debtor and the same had not been cleared off even by the sale of the property under attachment, was based on the materials on the record viz., the admission of the decree-holder, the admission of the judgment-debtor and from various letters and receipts Ext. 47/1 to Ext. 47/13. All these documents have been lost sight of by the High Court which has indeed exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the finding on the assumption that the courts below had approached the case with a wrong view of law in not drawing an adverse inference against Apte and Bavdekar on their failure to appear in court when the question of loan due to Apte from the judgment-debtor and the sale of the properties for Rs. 46,000 has been amply proved by the evidence on the record. The question of drawing an adverse inference against a party for his failure to appear in court would arise only when there is no evidence on the record.” (p.2238) 45. 46,000 has been amply proved by the evidence on the record. The question of drawing an adverse inference against a party for his failure to appear in court would arise only when there is no evidence on the record.” (p.2238) 45. In all the aforesaid judgments having been relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, facts brought altogether are different, where plaintiffs themselves had failed to enter into the witness box to prove their case. But Hon’ble Apex Court in Rattan Dev’s case supra, as has been reproduced above, has held that whether adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiff/defendant would be decided by the Court while appreciating other oral or documentary evidence available on record because, may be from other evidence produced by the party or otherwise brought on record, he/she may be able to discharge the onus, which may lay upon him/her and merely his/her absence from the witness box may not be the sole criteria to draw adverse inference. 46. Hon’ble Apex Court in Panduranga Jivaji Apte’s case supra has also held that the question of drawing an adverse inference against a party for its failure to appear in court would arise only when there is no evidence on the record. 47. But, in the instant case, as has been discussed in detail hereinabove, defendants by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence discharged onus upon them with regard to valid execution of sale deeds as well as passing of consideration and as such learned first appellate Court, while placing reliance upon aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, rightly came to conclusion that initial burden to prove the factum of fraud was upon the plaintiffs, which they have failed to discharge and as such no adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Substantial Question of Law No.3: 48. Careful perusal of evidence led on record by the plaintiffs, especially pleadings as well as statement of PW-1 Smt.Bhambo Devi, nowhere reveals/discloses anything with regard to their possession over the suit land. Learned trial Court, while decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, came to the conclusion that no transfer of land by way of sale deed has taken place in favour of defendants and as such defendants have not become owners nor they are in possession of the suit land. Learned trial Court, while decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, came to the conclusion that no transfer of land by way of sale deed has taken place in favour of defendants and as such defendants have not become owners nor they are in possession of the suit land. This Court was unable to lay its hand on any evidence adduced on record by the plaintiffs, particularly with regard to establishment of fact of plea for possession over the suit land. Learned trial Court while holding the plaintiff to be in possession has only taken note of the fact that the defendants had tried to take possession of the land in dispute and a criminal case was registered, wherein, admittedly, defendants were acquitted. If judgment of trial Court is seen in its entirety, it can be safely inferred that learned trial Court has concluded that three sale deeds Ex.PW-3/A to Ex.PW-3/C have not been proved to be executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants and as such they have been held to be in possession of the suit land and accordingly they were held to be entitled to relief of injunction. Once it stood duly proved on record that documents are not the result of fraud, undue influence and mis-representation and same were duly executed in accordance with law by the plaintiffs on passing consideration, learned first appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that defendants are owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of the sale deed in question and after execution of sale deeds in their favour, plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the same and being so, defendants are entitled to relief of injunction as prayed for by them in the suit bearing No.169/2012. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 49. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, both the appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly. The judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court below is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.