JUDGMENT : DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, J. 1. Defendants/counter-claimants in the trial Court are in second appeal. The complaint is that the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2003 passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 77-K/XIII-2001, whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2001 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 227/92, in favour of respondent No.1, the counter-claimant has been affirmed. 2. Godam, respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff’) claims himself to be owner in possession of land entered in Khata No. 3, Khatauni No. 6, Khasra Nos. 1148/1087 and 1156/1094 measuring 0-32-39 hectares, situated in Mohal and Mauza Garh, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter described as the 'suit land’). As per record and the findings recorded by both Courts below, the plaintiff is an illiterate and rustic villager and Shepherd (Gaddi) by caste and mostly remains away from the native place with herd of his sheep and goats. Dalip Singh, respondent No.1, remained posted as Patwari and Field Kanungo in the area where the suit land is situated. He developed intimacy and friendship with the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff also reposed faith in him. Defendant No.1, taking undue benefit of the simplicity and also long absence of the plaintiff from his native place, manged the execution of attorney in his favour to lookafter the suit property in his absence from the village along with the herd of his sheep and goats. The plaintiff in good faith accompanied defendant No.1 to Tehsil Kangra where papers were prepared by the later. The contents thereof were never explained to the former. The plaintiff even never intended to authorize defendant No.1 to alienate his property to anyone else as he was only authorized to manage the suit property. On the basis of forged and fictitious power of attorney defendant No.1 with malafide intentionto grab the suit land sold the same to defendant No.2, none-else but his daughter-in-law vide sale deed dated 8.10.1992, registered on 09.10.1992. The sale of the suit land according to the plaintiff was made by way of fraud, misrepresentation and without consideration and also consent of the plaintiff, hence was sought to be declared null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The sale of the suit land according to the plaintiff was made by way of fraud, misrepresentation and without consideration and also consent of the plaintiff, hence was sought to be declared null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Also that, alleged attorney to alienate the suit land was cancelled by the plaintiff on the same day i.e. 09.10.1992 and intimation in this regard was given to defendant No.1 in advance i.e., a day prior to it on 08.10.1992. Defendant No.1 was served with the copy of cancellation deed. When defendants No. 1 and 2 started threatening the plaintiff to dispossess him from the suit land on the basis of forged and fictitious sale deed, the suit for the decree of declaration that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and the sale deed being the result of fraud, misrepresentation and without consideration as well as the consent of the plaintiff is illegal, null and void. 3. Defendants No. 1 and 2 on entering appearance have contested the suit. In preliminary, the objections qua estoppel, waiver, valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, suit being benami and filed in collusion with defendant No.3, Chatro not maintainable, barred by limitation and filed without any locus-standi and also that the same could have not been tried by learned trial Court were raised. The gift of the suit land made by defendant No.3 was also sought to be declared as void, inoperative allegedly being the result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. On merits, while admitting that defendant No.1 remained posted as Field Kanungo in that area with headquarter at Mataur during the period from January, 1980 to January, 1986. It is contended that the suit land was located at a distance of 9 kilometers away therefrom. The suit land was allotted to the plaintiff by the State Government and as he was incapable of selling the same due to fetters created under the Rules, therefore, agreed to sell the same in the year 1984 to defendant No.2 in a sum of Rs.16,000/-. An agreement dated 26.11.1984 (Ext. DW-1/A) was executed in this regard. In terms thereof, a sum of Rs.4,000/- was paid by defendant No.2 to the plaintiff. An agreement dated 26.11.1984 (Ext. DW-1/A) was executed in this regard. In terms thereof, a sum of Rs.4,000/- was paid by defendant No.2 to the plaintiff. The sale deed was agreed to be executed by 22.7.1988, but well before it i.e. on 31.01.1985, the plaintiff required more money and sought the payment of balance sale consideration from defendant No.2. The balance sale consideration was also paid to him by the said defendant on that very day. Consequently, a new agreement was executed on that day and thereby the plaintiff authorized defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed qua suit land in favour of defendant No.2. After expiry of the statutory period, prohibiting the transfer of the suit land, defendant No.1 had executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 qua which sale consideration to the tune of Rs.16,000/- was already received by the plaintiff. Therefore, it was urged that on execution of sale deed, defendant No.2 became owner in possession of the suit land. 4. Even the plaintiff allegedly shifted from the village to some other place and consequently sold his other land also to some person including his elder brother Chatro, defendant No.3. The suit, as such, is stated to be benami filed by the plaintiff at the behest and collusion of his brother Chatro, defendant No.3. It is also contended that after purchase of the suit land by defendant No.2, revenue entries qua the suit land could not be got up-dated and taking advantage thereof, defendant No.3 in the capacity of attorney of plaintiff has fraudulently made gift of the suit land in favour of his wife, defendant No.4. The gift deed was registered on 16.02.1994. Therefore, by way of filing counter-claims, defendants No. 1 and 2 have sought the gift deed so executed to be declared illegal, inoperative and against their right, title as well as interest in the suit land. Additionally, the decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants No. 3 and 4 from causing interference in the suit land was also sought to be passed. 5. Defendants No.3 and 4 in separate written statement have denied the counter-claims being wrong and contended that the plaintiff being owner of the suit land had rightly executed a Special Power of Attorney to deal with the suit land in favour of defendant No.3. 5. Defendants No.3 and 4 in separate written statement have denied the counter-claims being wrong and contended that the plaintiff being owner of the suit land had rightly executed a Special Power of Attorney to deal with the suit land in favour of defendant No.3. The later, therefore, being attorney of plaintiff had rightly gifted away the same in favour of defendant No.4. It is, therefore, denied that the gift deed was void, result of misrepresentation and fraud. 6. In replication, defendants No. 1 and 2 have denied the contents of written statement filed by defendants No. 3 and 4 being wrong and re-asserted the counter-claims they laid in the written statement filed to the suit. 7. The plaintiff in replication has also denied the sale of the suit land in favour of defendant No.2 on receipt of consideration and reiterated his case as set out in the plaint. 8. The issues in the suit initially were framed on 17.01.1994, however, certain issues were added on 23.05.1996. Learned lower appellate Court has taken for consideration the issues including additional issues re-framed on 23.05.1996. The same read as follow:- 1. Whether the sale deed dated 8.10.1992 executed by defendant No.1, on the basis of forged general power of attorney dated 31.1.1985, in favour of defendant No.2, by Sub Registrar, Dharamshala vide No.752 dated 9.10.1992, is the result of fraud, mis-representation and without consideration, as alleged? If so, its effect? OPP. 2. Whether the sale deed is Sham and bogus document and does not convey any title in favour of defendant No.2, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land in suit, as alleged? OPP. 4. If issue No. 3 is not proved, whether in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled to possession, as claimed for?OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act, conduct, acquiescence and silence? OPP. 6. Whether the plaintiff has waived his right to sue? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is not competent in the present form? OPD. 9. Whether the present suit is benami and has been filed in collusion with one Chatro, son of rounki, as alleged? OPD. 10. Whether the suit is not within time?OPD. 11. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD. OPD. 8. Whether the suit is not competent in the present form? OPD. 9. Whether the present suit is benami and has been filed in collusion with one Chatro, son of rounki, as alleged? OPD. 10. Whether the suit is not within time?OPD. 11. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD. 12. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to sue? OPD. 13. Whether the gift deed dated 16.2.1994 made by defendant No.3 on behalf of plaintiff as his general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.4, is void, inoperative, based on fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and without authority? OPD. 14. Whether the defendant No.2 is entitled to declaration with consequential relief of permanent and mandatory injunction that he is owner in possession of the land in suit? OPD 15. Relief. 9. The parties were put to trial. The plaintiff besides his own testimony in the witness box as PW-1 had also examined PW-2 Maghi Ram, PW-3 Pratap Chand, PW-4 Budhi Singh, PW-5 Moti Ram and PW-6 Amrik Singh to prove that he being Shepherd had been mostly remaining away from his native place, however, throughout remained in possession of the suit land. Also that, defendant No.1 remained posted as Patwari/Kanungo in that area during the period from 1980 to 1986 and managed the execution of the impugned attorney, by taking the benefit of his simplicity and the factum of his being away from the village with herd of sheep and goats. 10. On the other hand, defendants No. 1 and 2 have examined defendant No.1 as DW-1, Sharatpal as DW-2, Ranjeet Singh DW-3, Roop Lal DW-4, Moti Ram DW-5, K.S. Pathania DW-6, Baldev Raj DW-7, B.C. Chaudhary DW-8 and R.C. Sood DW-9 to prove that the suit land was agreed to be sold by the plaintiff to defendant No.2 on payment of sale consideration to him. The reliance was also placed on the documentary evidence i.e. Ext.DW-1/A, copy of agreement dated 26.11.1984, copy of agreement dated 31.01.1985 Ext.DW-1/B, copy of sale deed dated 08.10.1992 Ext.DW-1/C, five years average sale price certificate Ext.DW-1/D, copy of sale deed Ext.DW-1/E, copy of mutation Ext. D-O, copy of jamabandis Ext.D-P to Ext. D-Z, copy of rojnamcha Ext. DW-7/A, abstract of pass-book Ext.DW-7/A and copy of General Power of Attorney Ext.DW-6/A and Ext. DW-6/B. 11. D-O, copy of jamabandis Ext.D-P to Ext. D-Z, copy of rojnamcha Ext. DW-7/A, abstract of pass-book Ext.DW-7/A and copy of General Power of Attorney Ext.DW-6/A and Ext. DW-6/B. 11. On the other hand, defendant No.3 Chatro Ram has stepped into the witness box as DW-1/A and examined Udho Ram as DW-2/A. 12. Learned trial Court on appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence had returned the findings on issues No.1 to 3 in affirmative i.e. in favour of the plaintiff and on remaining issues No. 5 to 14 in negative i.e. against defendants No. 1 and 2. As a matter of fact, issue No. 4 in view of findings on issues No. 1 to 3 had become redundant, however, learned trial Judge has wrongly answered the same in negative. As a result of findings recorded on all the issues, the suit was decreed and the counter-claims dismissed. 13. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, the legality and validity thereof was assailed before learned lower appellate Court. On reappraisal of the entire evidence and hearing the parties on both sides, learned lower appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court vide judgment under challenge in the present appeal. 14. The grounds of challenge as raised by defendants No. 1 and 2/appellants mainly are that trial Court has committed procedural illegality by firstly, framing issues on 17.01.1994 and thereafter again on 23.05.1996, which allegedly has resulted in serious prejudice to them. The lower appellate Court should have set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court on this score alone. The findings recorded beyond the pleadings on record have vitiated the impugned judgment and decree. The suit was filed with a prayer to set aside the sale deed Ext. PW-1/C, however, the whole thrust of the pleadings was regarding power of attorney allegedly obtained by defendant No.1 by way of fraud and misrepresentation. The pleadings were wholly deficient qua fraud and misrepresentation. No findings qua validity of Ext. DW-6/A was recorded by learned trial Court. The sale deed Ext. DW-1/C, as such, could have not been declared illegal, null and void. Both Courts below have not appreciated the case pleaded by the plaintiff in its right perspective and proceeded in the matter in a highly mechanical manner. No findings qua validity of Ext. DW-6/A was recorded by learned trial Court. The sale deed Ext. DW-1/C, as such, could have not been declared illegal, null and void. Both Courts below have not appreciated the case pleaded by the plaintiff in its right perspective and proceeded in the matter in a highly mechanical manner. The power of attorney was duly executed and registered with Sub-Registrar, hence could have not been held to be the result of fraud and misrepresentation. The findings to the contrary have been said to be erroneous. The case qua collusion of plaintiff and defendant No.3 Chatro pleaded by the defendants has not been considered at all. On the other hand, the defendant had admitted his signature on agreements Ext. DW-1/A and Ext. DW-1/B. The sale consideration he received from defendant No. 2 was also proved, however, such evidence available on record has not been appreciated. The impugned judgment has been sought to be quashed and set aside. 15. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the plaint of the plaintiff-respondent was liable to be rejected, in view of the relief claimed by the plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaint lacked particulars of fraud and, therefore, the courts below could not have gone into the question of fraud? 3. Whether the courts below ignored and misappreciated the material evidence on record, which if considered would have resulted in dismissal of the suit? 4. Whether the dismissal of the counter claim of the defendantsappellants was result of misreading the evidence on record? 16. Respondent-plaintiff was duly served and represented by Smt. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. She, however, failed to put in appearance at later stage and, as such, he has been proceeded against ex-parte. Similarly, defendants No. 2 and 3 (defendants No. 3 and 4 in the trial Court) have also opted for not putting appearance despite service in this appeal, hence proceeded against ex-parte. 17. During the course of ex-parte arguments, Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Poonam Gehlot, Advocate has strenuously contended that on the execution of sale deed Ext. DW-1/C, consequent upon the agreement Ext. DW-1/A and Ext. DW-1/B as well as the receipt of entire sale consideration in advance by the plaintiff, defendant No.2 has become owner in possession of the suit land. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Poonam Gehlot, Advocate has strenuously contended that on the execution of sale deed Ext. DW-1/C, consequent upon the agreement Ext. DW-1/A and Ext. DW-1/B as well as the receipt of entire sale consideration in advance by the plaintiff, defendant No.2 has become owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff having failed to prove its case that power of attorney Ext. DW-6/A and Ext. DW-6/B was the result of fraud and misrepresentation, the suit could have not been decreed. Similarly, defendant No.3 Chatro Ram had no authority to gift the suit land in favour of his wife, defendant No.4. According to Mr. Gupta, both Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its right perspective. The impugned judgment and decree, as such, has been sought to be quashed and set aside and the suit dismissed, whereas, the counterclaims decreed. 18. On analyzing the arguments addressed on behalf of appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 vis-a-vis the evidence available on record, it would not be improper to conclude that no substantial question of law what to speak of substantial questions of law as framed in this appeal arises for determination by this Court for the reason that the present is a case of concurrent findings recorded by both Courts below on appreciation of the given facts and circumstances and also the evidence available on record. Irrespective of the arguments addressed that on account of mis-appreciation of the evidence on record, the findings recorded by both Courts below have vitiated. Nothing tangible has been brought to the notice of this Court in this regard during the course of arguments. Support in this regard can be drawn from the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Sher Mangat Ram vs. Krishna Devi and ors.,2013 (3) Shim. L.C. 1507, that in a case of findings of facts recorded by both Courts below on appreciation of evidence, the High Court in second appeal normally should not interfere therewith, unless and until convinced that the findings have been recorded in complete misreading, mis-construction and mis-appreciation of the evidence available on record and thereby serious prejudice has been caused to the aggrieved party. 19. 19. It is in this backdrop, if coming to substantial question of law at Serial No. 1 supra, the relief sought in the plaint reads as follows:- “It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for the declaration that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata No.3, Khatauni No.8, Khasra Nos. 1148/1087 and 1158/1094 land measuring 0-32-39 hecs plot 2 situated in Mohal and Mauza Garh Tehsil Dharmsala, Distt. Kangra, as per jamabandi for the year 1986-87, and is entitled to remain as such in the future as well and the sale deed executed thereof by the defendant No.1 vide sale deed Dated 8th OCT, 1992. Registered by Sub Registrar, Dharmsala vide No. 752 dated 9-10-92, on the basis of forged General Power of Attorney dated 31-1-1985, registered vide No. 29 by Sub Registrar Kangra, on behalf of the plaintiff and in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of the aforesaid land is a result of fraud, mis-representation and has been executed without consideration as well as consent of the plaintiff and is as such ineffective, inoperative and null and void and the same does not create any title in favour of defendant No.2 and the said document of sale deserves to be rescinded/cancelled being null and void and the defendants have got no right, title or interest in the suit land in any manner whatsoever and the said Sale Deed is sham, bogus document and does not convey any title thereunder in favour of the defendant No.2 together with a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from claiming any rights in the suit land or interfere therein any manner, whatsoever and in case the defendant succeed in dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly from the said land during the pendency of the suit, on the strength of the said document of sale, a decree for possession be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with costs.” 20. No objection to the effect that in view of relief claimed, the plaint deserves rejection has been raised in the written statement. Even during the course of arguments also, nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court as to how in view of relief claimed by the plaintiff, the plaint had to be rejected. No objection to the effect that in view of relief claimed, the plaint deserves rejection has been raised in the written statement. Even during the course of arguments also, nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court as to how in view of relief claimed by the plaintiff, the plaint had to be rejected. Therefore, the plea to this effect has been raised merely for rejection and as such substantial question of law at Serial No.1 does not arise for consideration at all in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 21. Now, if coming to substantial question of law at Serial No.2, the plaintiff in order to urge that the power of attorney Ext. DW-6/A and Ext. DW-6/B were result of fraud and misrepresentation as well as undue benefit of his simplicity taken by defendant No.1, has averred as under in the plaint:- “1. That the plaintiff is a Gaddi (shepherd), a rustic villager and uneducated person and does not understand the intricacies of the law. He respects and believes everyone in good faith. 2. That the defendant No.1 was initially Patwari and subsequently promoted as Kanungo in the revenue deptt. of Himachal Pradesh State Govt. He developed intimacy and friendship with the plaintiff. The plaintiff placed implicit faith in him and has been totally depending on his advice to every day to day matters being an educated person and custodian of law. 3. That the plaintiff used to remain away form his native place for some time during every year. The defendant No.1 adviced the plaintiff that he being in the revenue deptt. could well look after him to execute a Power of Attorney for that purpose. The plaintiff being simpleton, believed the defendant no.1 in good faith and accompanied him to Tehsil Kangra where he got prepared a paper and got the same signed from him. The plaintiff was not made known or explained the contents of the said power of attorney nor told implication thereof. The plaintiff, however, never intend to empower the defendant No.1 to sell the suit land on his behalf to anyone. He was only authorized to look-after the said land in his absence.” 22. No doubt, in response to such averments in the plaint, the stand of defendants No. 1 and 2 is denial in toto. The plaintiff, however, never intend to empower the defendant No.1 to sell the suit land on his behalf to anyone. He was only authorized to look-after the said land in his absence.” 22. No doubt, in response to such averments in the plaint, the stand of defendants No. 1 and 2 is denial in toto. However, if coming to evidence available on record, the plaintiff while in the witness box as PW-1 had corroborated such averments made in the plaint in its entirety because according to him, defendant No. 1 remained posted as Field Kanungo in the area and hired accommodation for residential purposes in village Sukad. He was his neighbour and as such, developed intimacy and friendship as well as gained his confidence. Since he at that time was working as labourer and also grazing sheep and goats, therefore, defendant No.1 approached him to lookafter his property during his absence from the village so that the same is not occupied by other person. Defendant No.1 thus obtained a document (DW-6/A) from him for managing the suit property. The same was got written from the Petition Writer in Tehsil Kangra. The contents thereof were never explained to him. It is after 5-6 years when came to know that defendant No.1 in the form of that document had obtained power of attorney of him. On 8.10.1992, he apprised the said defendant that he is going to cancel the same. Consequently, he got cancelled the so called power of attorney on 09.10.1992, however, defendant No.1 irrespective of it got executed and registered sale deed Ext. DW-1/C on the same day i.e. on 09.10.1992 in favour of defendant No.2. The plaintiff while in the witness box has further stated that he never received any sale consideration. It is he who is owner in possession of the suit land. He has admitted that there was prohibition to transfer the suit land for a period of 10 years in terms of its allotment to him. He has denied the execution of agreement Ext. DW-1/A and Ext. DW-1/B in favour of defendant No.2 and also receipt of sale consideration from her. He has also denied her possession over the suit land. 23. He has denied the execution of agreement Ext. DW-1/A and Ext. DW-1/B in favour of defendant No.2 and also receipt of sale consideration from her. He has also denied her possession over the suit land. 23. Now, if coming to the testimony of PW-3 Pratap Chand, Dalip Singh (Defendant No.1) remained posted as Kanungo during the period 1980 to 1986 in that area and had been residing in a rented house being his neighbour. He had been supplying milk to the said defendant for about one year. The suggestions that the office of defendant No.1 during that period was at Mataur and that he has deposed falsely were denied being wrong. Similar is the testimony of Budhi Singh, PW-3. Also that, he is neighbour of the plaintiff. According to him, the suit land is in possession of the plaintiff and that the same never came to be possessed by the defendants. In his cross-examination, it is stated that in 1984- 85, office of Kanungo was situated at village Sukad and defendant No.1 also used to reside there. PW-6 Amrik Singh, Sadar Kanungo has also deposed that defendant Dalip Singh remained posted as Field Kanungo during the period from 1980 to 1986 at Kangra. He, however, failed to tell as to where was his headquarter situated. PW-2 Maghi Ram is working as labourer in I&PH Department to regularize the supply of irrigation water for the land situated in village Sukad. He has also deposed that it is the plaintiff, who is in possession of the suit land and he had been irrigating the same on his instructions. 24. On the other hand, the defence of defendants No. 1 and 2 as emerges from the evidence available on record is that defendant No.1 during his posting as Field Kanungo in that area was having his office at village Mataur. Even if the testimony of DW-2 and DW- 3 Ranjeet Singh and for that matter DW-4 in this regard is believed to be true that the suit land is situated in Mohal and Mauza Garh, in that event also the same was under Kanungoi circle of defendant No.1 as has come in the statement of DW-2 Sharatpal. The distance between Mataur and village Garh (Sukad) where the suit land is situated, according to defendants themselves is 9 kilometers. The distance between Mataur and village Garh (Sukad) where the suit land is situated, according to defendants themselves is 9 kilometers. Therefore, in this view of the matter, it is immaterial that defendant No.1 was residing either at Sukad or Mataur. The facts remain that suit land was within the area falling under the Kanungoi circle of which defendant No.1 was Kanungo. Otherwise also, it is established that defendant No.1 remained posted as Patwari also in that area. Therfore, the possibility of he was residing at Sukad and neighbour of the plaintiff at that time can not be ruled-out. The factum of plaintiff a simpleton person remaining away from his native place with herd of sheep and goats is satisfactorily proved on record. Defendant No.1 remained posted as Patwari and Kanungo in that area can reasonably be believed to have obtained Special Power of Attorney Ext. DW-6/A from the plaintiff by way of taking undue benefit of his simplicity and on the pretext that in his absence from the village, he will lookafter the suit land so that the same is not occupied by someone else. 25. Now, if coming to the execution of agreement Ext. DW-1/A and Ext. DW-1/B, the execution thereof is also not proved for want of examination of attesting witnesses thereto. Otherwise also, as per Ext. DW-1/A, the agreement dated 26.11.1994 the plaintiff allegedly agreed to sell the suit land thereby in a sum of Rs.16,000/- to defendant No.2 and to execute the sale deed by 22.07.1988. It is recorded in this document that earnest money to the tune of Rs.4,000/- was received in advance by the plaintiff from defendant No.2. As noticed supra, neither the attesting witnesses nor the scribe of this document have been examined. The same has been sought to be proved through DW Dalip Singh, who is not a signatory thereto. Otherwise also, defendant No.2, the beneficiary under this document is none-else but the daughter-in-law of defendant No.1 and as such, he himself is also the beneficiary of this document. Execution of this document, as such, is not at all proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 26. The factum of the plaintiff felt necessity of the balance sale consideration well before the date of execution of the sale deed allegedly by 22.07.1988 and the said amount i.e. Rs.12,000/- was paid to him on 31.01.1985 as well as another agreement Ext. Execution of this document, as such, is not at all proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 26. The factum of the plaintiff felt necessity of the balance sale consideration well before the date of execution of the sale deed allegedly by 22.07.1988 and the said amount i.e. Rs.12,000/- was paid to him on 31.01.1985 as well as another agreement Ext. DW-1/B was executed on that day is also not proved for the reason that the same has again been sought to be proved in evidence by defendant No.1 none-else but beneficiary thereto. The agreement was attested by PW-6 K.S. Pathania. As per this witness, the same was scribed at the behest of plaintiff who admitted the contents thereof in the absence of Moti Ram and this witness. Also that, a sum of Rs.12,000/- was paid to the plaintiff at the time of execution of this document. Also that, receipt of Rs.4,000/- by way of earnest money was also admitted by the plaintiff while the agreement Ext. DW-1/B was being reduced into writing at his instance. Similar even is the statement made by defendant No.1 while in the witness box, however, the evidence so come on record by way of testimony of DW-1 and DW- 6 that a sum of Rs.12,000/- was received by the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement Ext. DW-1/B and he even admitted the payment of Rs.4,000/- by way of earnest money to him is not at all proved satisfactorily for the reason that nothing to this effect finds recorded in this document. As a matter of fact, had Rs.12,000/- been paid to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement Ext. DW-1/B and he having admitted that Rs.4,000/- already received by way of earnest money, such facts if recorded in the agreement would have removed all doubts in this regard and the defendants’ case that the plaintiff had sold the suit land to defendant No.2 on receipt of the sale consideration inspire confidence. However, nothing to this effect finds recorded in this document. Not only this but in the agreement Ext. DW-1/B, which, as a matter of fact, was executed in continuation to the earlier agreement Ext. DW-1/A, again there is no mention of execution of this agreement therein nor that earnest money Rs.4,000/- was paid to the plaintiff at that time. In Ext. Not only this but in the agreement Ext. DW-1/B, which, as a matter of fact, was executed in continuation to the earlier agreement Ext. DW-1/A, again there is no mention of execution of this agreement therein nor that earnest money Rs.4,000/- was paid to the plaintiff at that time. In Ext. DW-1/B, only mention is qua sale of the suit land by the plaintiff to defendant No.2 in a sum of Rs.16,000/-. This document rather gives an impression that the sale consideration was paid in advance to the plaintiff on 31.01.1985, when the same executed. The evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of DW-1 Dalip Singh and DW-6 K.S. Pathania, as such, is neither satisfactory nor plausible. Learned lower appellate Court has rightly observed that man may tell lie but not the circumstances and as regards the present controversy, the recitals in agreement Ext. DW-1/B not substantiate the claim of the defendants at all. 27. The further plea raised by the defendants qua withdrawal of Rs.12,000/- from the account of defendant No.1 on 31.01.1985 though has been supported from the testimony of DW-9 R.C. Sood, Manager, State Bank of India, Dharamshala, however, from the withdrawal entries Ext. DW-7/A it is not proved that this amount was withdrawn and paid only to the plaintiff and none-else towards balance sale consideration, particularly, when no mention thereof finds recorded in the agreement Ext.DW-1/B. 28. Now, if coming to Ext. DW-6/A, the Special Power of Attorney, the same was also executed on 31.01.1985 by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 for managing the suit property and purportedly also to alienate the same. DW-6 K.S. Pathania again is a witness to this document. Although, he admitted the execution of Ext. DW-6/A by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1, however, in the absence of reference of this document in Ext. DW-1/A executed on the same day belies the testimony of DW-6 in this regard. In Ext. DW-6/A also, there is no mention of execution of the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 qua sale of suit land and receipt of sale consideration entirely by the plaintiff from defendant No.2 and authorization given to defendant No.1, her father-in-law to execute the sale deed. The absence of such facts in the attorney Ext. DW-6/A casts aspersions qua its authenticity and genuineness. 29. Now if coming to the sale deed Ext. The absence of such facts in the attorney Ext. DW-6/A casts aspersions qua its authenticity and genuineness. 29. Now if coming to the sale deed Ext. DW-1/C, in this document, there is no reference of earlier agreement Ext. DW-1/A dated 26.11.1984 and Ext. DW-1/B dated 31.01.1985. There is again no mention in this document that the sale consideration i.e. Rs.16,000/- was paid by the vendee to the vendor through his attorney i.e. defendant No.1. On the other hand, the sale deed Ext. DW-1/C reveals that sale consideration i.e. Rs.16,000/-was received by the vendor on 31.01.1985. The agreement Ext. DW-1/B in which the factum of payment of sale consideration of Rs.16,000/- finds recorded without there being mention about the earlier agreement dated 26.11.1984 Ext. DW-1/A and the payment of earnest money of Rs.4,000/- on that day, renders the entire story introduced by defendants No.1 and 2 highly doubtful. 30. Interestingly enough, as per the evidence produced by the plaintiff on coming to know about the Special Power of Attorney Ext. DW-6/A and the so called authority given by him thereby to defendant No.1 to sell the suit land to defendant No.2 went to defendant No.1 on 08.10.1992 and apprised him that he is going to cancel the attorney Ext. DW-6/A. The attorney was ultimately cancelled by him at 11.00 a.m. on the next day i.e. 09.10.1992. The execution of the sale deed on 08.10.1992 after the plaintiff’s having disclosed to defendant No.1 his intention to cancel the attorney Ext. DW-6/A the registration thereof on the next date i.e. 09.10.1992 is nothing but a clever move on the part of defendant No.1 to grab the suit land. The execution and registration of sale deed Ext. DW-1/C even after the revocation of the attorney Ext. DW-6/A is nullity having created no right, title and interest in favour of defendant No.2 so far as the suit land is concerned. Both Courts below have rightly considered this aspect of the matter also on the basis of evidence available on record and also the law applicable. 31. In this backdrop, from the re-appraisal of the oral as well as documentary evidence in its entirety, no question that plaint lacks in better particulars i.e. of fraud and non-appreciation of evidence available on record arises at all. 31. In this backdrop, from the re-appraisal of the oral as well as documentary evidence in its entirety, no question that plaint lacks in better particulars i.e. of fraud and non-appreciation of evidence available on record arises at all. Otherwise also, it has not been brought to the notice of this Court as to what evidence has been ignored and not taken into consideration by both Courts below and how it has been mis-appreciated during the course of arguments addressed. The substantial questions of law at Serial Nos. 2 and 3 do not arise at all in the present appeal. 32. The substantial question of law at Serial No. 4 pertains to dismissal of the counter-claims of the defendants/ appellants. It is the plaintiff who has been held to be owner in possession of the suit land, therefore, there is no question of gifting away the same by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4. On the other hand, when Special Power of Attorney Ext. DW-6/A has been held to be the result of fraud, misrepresentation and also undue benefit of the simplicity of the plaintiff, therefore, the sale deed Ext. DW-1/C executed on the basis thereof, that too, at such a stage when the same was revoked by the plaintiff is illegal, null and void, hence not binding on the plaintiff. The counter-claims have, therefore, been rightly rejected by both Courts below. No such substantial question of law arises for determination in the present appeal. 33. For all the reasons discussed here-in-above, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application (s), if any.