JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. In terms of the order dated 01.9.2017 passed in IA 03 of 2017 arising from RSA 36 of 2011 the additional substantial question of law is framed : “Whether the finding that PWs 1 and 2 put their signature and thumb impression on perceiving and having induced that they were executing a deed of will, not the sale deed, suffers from perversity?” 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment dated 22.3.2011 delivered in T.A. No. 13 of 2010 by the Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar [as he then was]. By the said judgment, the judgment and decree dated 12.05.2010 and 20.05.2010 delivered in T.S. No. 20 of 2009 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division have been affirmed by dismissing the appeal. The suit was filed for declaration, cancellation of the deeds and perpetual injunction preceded by confirmation of possession. The questioned deeds have been described in the Schedule-B of the plaint. For purpose of reference the Schedule-B of the plaint is extracted hereunder : Schedule-B “(i) Deed No.1-76 dated 12.01.2009 shown to be executed by Ahammad Hussain and Mohammad Hussain, plaintiffs in favour of Md. Nur Ahammad defendant No.1 in respect of land measuring 0.26 Acre. (ii) Deed No.1-77 dated 12.01.2009 shown to be executed by Ahammad Hussain plaintiff No.1 in favour of Md. Nur Ahammad in respect of land measuring 0.17 Acre. (iii) Deed No.1-120 dated 17.01.2009 shown to be executed by Ahammad Hussain and Mohammad Hussain plaintiffs in favour of Md. Nur Ahammad defendant No.1 in respect of land measuring 0.13 Acre. (iv) Deed No.1-172 dated 27.01.2009 shown to be executed by Ahammad Hussain and Mohammad Hussain, plaintiffs in favour of Md. Nur Ahammad defendant No.1 in respect of land measuring 0.27 Acre.” 3. The original plaintiffs, whose legal heirs are now on records as the defendant-respondents in this appeal, are the exclusive owners of the land measuring 0.83 acre comprised in the Khatians No.137, 142, 143 and 560 of Mouza Kameswar, North Tripura. The said land is spread over as many as six plots being RS plot No. 217 measuring 0.20 (Khatian no. The original plaintiffs, whose legal heirs are now on records as the defendant-respondents in this appeal, are the exclusive owners of the land measuring 0.83 acre comprised in the Khatians No.137, 142, 143 and 560 of Mouza Kameswar, North Tripura. The said land is spread over as many as six plots being RS plot No. 217 measuring 0.20 (Khatian no. 137), RS plot No.223 measuring 0.06 (Khatian No.137), RS plot No. 216 measuring 0.17 acre (Khatian No. 142), RS plot No. 224 measuring 0.13 acre (Khatian No. 137), RS plot No. 221 measuring 0.16 acre (Khatian No. 143) and RS plot No. 222 measuring 0.21(Khatian No. 560). The descriptions of the land are more particularly provided in the Schedule-A of the plaint. The original plaintiffs were admittedly the owner in possession of that land. 4. The defendant No.1 in the suit namely Md. Nur Ahmed, the appellant herein, was raised and treated as the son of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had unflinching trust on the defendant No.1. When the plaintiffs expressed their desire to execute a will in respect of a plot of land measuring .04 acre in favour of the defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 at the request of the plaintiffs took the responsibility of preparing the will and getting it registered. According to the original plaintiffs, taking that opportunity, the defendant No.1 got executed the Deed No. 1-76 dated 12.01.2009, Deed No. 1-77 dated 12.01.2009 Deed No. 1-120 dated 07.01.2009 and Deed No. 1-172 dated 27.01.2003. All those deeds are the sale deeds purportedly executed on payment of consideration. The original plaintiffs have stated in the plaint that no consideration was ever paid to them. 5. The defendant No.1 by exploiting the dominant position of trust induced the original plaintiffs to execute those four sale deeds which are sought to be cancelled by those plaintiffs by filing the suit being T.S.20 of 2009. The plaintiffs have also challenged the Deed No.1-579 dated 30.01.2009 by dint of which the entire land measuring 0.83 acre was transferred to Mst. Mamtaz Begam, Mst. Churutunnessa and Md. Abdul Rahim through his constituted attorney namely Mridul Chakraborty. 6. In the plaint, it has been asserted by the original plaintiffs that all the defendants in connivance and unlawful collaboration managed the execution and registration of all the suit deeds. Mamtaz Begam, Mst. Churutunnessa and Md. Abdul Rahim through his constituted attorney namely Mridul Chakraborty. 6. In the plaint, it has been asserted by the original plaintiffs that all the defendants in connivance and unlawful collaboration managed the execution and registration of all the suit deeds. As such, those deeds were executed fraudulently and by deceitful means and hence those are liable to be cancelled. The appellants along with the other defendants by filing a joint written statement disputed such allegations as narrated above but admitted the fact of getting the disputed deeds executed by the original plaintiffs. It has not been disputed that by the Deed No. 1-759 dated 30.03.2009, the entire land as described in the Schedule-A of the plaint was sold to the defendant Nos.2, 5 and 6 through his attorney, the defendant No.3. Accordingly to the original appellant, the original plaintiffs requested him to find out the purchaser for sale of their landed property. The defendant No.1 approached the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 but they did not show further interest to purchase the said land, however, they proposed that if the defendant No.1 (the appellant) intended to purchase the said land they may financially support him. Thus, the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 met the plaintiff at their residence and made elaborate discussion in presence of other persons. During the discussion the consideration amount was fixed at Rs.2,30,000/- for the said land measuring 0.83 acre. It was decided on that payment of full consideration money, the plaintiffs would execute the sale deeds in favour of the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 could not make payment at a time and that is the reason why the deeds were executed on three different dates viz. 12.01.2009, 17.01.2009 and 27.01.2009. According to the defendant No.1 (the appellant) the total consideration money i.e. Rs.2,30,000/- was borrowed from defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on condition to refund the total amount within a period of two months from the day of borrowing the money. As the defendant No.1 could not refund the entire money, he constituted the defendant No.3 as his constituted attorney. Thereafter, through the said attorney he sold out the entire land on consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of defendant Nos. 2, 5 and 6. The plaintiffs filed a Criminal case in the Dharmanagar police station. As the defendant No.1 could not refund the entire money, he constituted the defendant No.3 as his constituted attorney. Thereafter, through the said attorney he sold out the entire land on consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of defendant Nos. 2, 5 and 6. The plaintiffs filed a Criminal case in the Dharmanagar police station. For purpose of deciding the suit the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharmanagar, North Tripura had framed the following issues : “(i) Whether the plaintiffs had cause of action to sue the defendants? (ii) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature? (iii) Whether defendant No.1 namely Nur Ahmed while living under the foster care of the plaintiffs like their son deceived them by fraudulently executing registered deeds bearing No.1-76 dated 12.01.2009, 1-77 dated 12.01.2009, 1-120 dated 17.01.2009 and 1-172 dated 27.01.2009 and 1-759 dated 30.03.2009 for illegal gain thereby making the said deeds illegal, void and inoperative? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for? (v) Whether the parties are entitled to any other relief?” The plaintiffs and the defendants adduced evidence, both oral and documentary. The plaintiffs adduced four witnesses whereas the defendants examined eight witnesses and introduced the deeds and other documents. 7. Having appreciated the evidence led by the plaintiffs, the suit was decreed cancelling the disputed deeds as described in the Schedule-B. The trial court has clearly observed as under : “It is crystal clear from the evidence and the conduct of the defendants that there were prior meeting of minds of the defendants and a plan was designed to fulfil the ulterior object. There is no evidence in rebuttal of the plaintiffs contention that they were intentionally kept unaware of the contents of the impugned sale deeds. None witnessed the payment of consideration money to the plaintiffs by the defendants. Even the attesting witness of the sale deeds were also kept unaware of the contents of the deeds. Among the DWs Mansur Ali, D.W.8 has admitted in his cross-examination that inspite of being an attesting witness he was not aware of the contents of the impugned deed, exhibit-D. Similarly D.W.7 Naresh Ch. Das an attesting witness of exhibit-C sale deed was not also aware of the contents of the deed. Among the DWs Mansur Ali, D.W.8 has admitted in his cross-examination that inspite of being an attesting witness he was not aware of the contents of the impugned deed, exhibit-D. Similarly D.W.7 Naresh Ch. Das an attesting witness of exhibit-C sale deed was not also aware of the contents of the deed. If we judge the case of the standard of preponderance of probability we find what the plaintiffs case appear to be more probable than that of the defendants.” 8. Against the said judgment dated 12.05.2010, the defendant No.1 filed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in the court of the Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar being T.A. No. 13 of 2010. By the impugned judgment dated 22.03.2011, the appeal was dismissed on affirming the finding of the trial court and by holding as under : “From the case record it transpires that the appellant No.1 held a position of active confidence of the respondents and as such the burden of proving the good faith in the transaction between him and the respondents lies on the appellant No.1 as contemplated u/s.111 of the Indian Evidence Act. So, I do not agree with the submission of fraud/misrepresentation in respect of sale deeds lies on the respondents instead of the appellants. In my opinion the burden of proof lies on the appellants and not on the respondents. It appears from the cross-examination of DWs.6, 7, 8 who were the attesting witnesses of the sale deeds under Exbts. 5,6,7 & 9 and the examination in chief of DW.5 who was the deed writer of the said sale deeds that the contents of these sale deeds were not read over to the respondents before they were called upon to execute the same. Hence, the contention of the respondents that they were quite in the dark about the contents of the sale deeds before execution of those deeds by them seems to have substance which also fortifies their plea regarding practicing fraud/misrepresentation upon them by the appellant No.1 in connivance with other appellants namely appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4. Hence, the contention of the respondents that they were quite in the dark about the contents of the sale deeds before execution of those deeds by them seems to have substance which also fortifies their plea regarding practicing fraud/misrepresentation upon them by the appellant No.1 in connivance with other appellants namely appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4. From the recital of the sale deed under Exbt.6 (from the respondents side) and under Exbt.C (from the appellants side) it appears to me that the vendee i.e. the appellant No.1 of the alleged deed has been prohibited from transferring of the sold out land to anybody till the vendors i.e., the respondents are alive. The said stipulation in the recital of the sale deed is unique, uncalled for and also unusual to a deed of sale. This aspect also casts doubt about the authenticity of the sale deed. The decision referred to by learned counsel for the respondent which is reported in the AIR 2009 Uttarakhand at Page 37 is also found to have governed the case in hand. The respondents who are illiterate and aged persons and are found completely dependent upon the appellant No.1 and hence, the special cloak of protection which the pardanashin ladies are getting, as indicated in the referred case, the respondents are of this case are equally deserving the said protection to the extent that at least the respondents who are allegedly illiterate and aged persons should have been made conversant about the contents of the sale deeds before they were called upon to execute the same. The appellants are found to have failed to discharge their burden in this respect. The appellants have also failed to convince the court regarding the absence of fraud/misrepresentation in respect of the sale deeds under Exbts.5, 6, 7 & 9 which are alleged to have been executed by the respondents in favour of the appellant No.1. So, learned trial court in my opinion committed no wrong in declaring the sale deeds under Exbts.5, 6, 7 and 9 illegally, void and inoperative.” [Emphasis added] 9. Now by this appeal, the said judgment dated 22.03.2011 has been challenged. So, learned trial court in my opinion committed no wrong in declaring the sale deeds under Exbts.5, 6, 7 and 9 illegally, void and inoperative.” [Emphasis added] 9. Now by this appeal, the said judgment dated 22.03.2011 has been challenged. At the threshold, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by the order dated 29.08.2011: “(i) Whether the judgment of the learned Court below can be sustained when it hinges on evidence of the scribe, which is absolutely otherwise on record and thus the judgment is a perverse and based on no evidence? (ii) Whether the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant can be said to be a relationship of mutual confidence, having a fiduciary relationship between them to fall back under Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?” At the instance of the appellant one additional substantial question of law has been framed by this court by the order dated 01.09.2017 and that has been quoted in the very beginning. 10. Mr. G.K. Nama, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has strenuously argued that the concurrent finding returned by the first appellate court is not sustainable. Even though, the concurrent finding is challenged in this appeal on the basis of the substantial question of law, this court can examine whether those findings are perverse for mis-reading or non-reading of the evidence on record. He has further submitted that both the courts below have discarded the evidence, both documentary and oral, by substituting those by presumption. The court cannot conjure up an inference, contrary to such hard evidence. Mr. Nama, learned counsel has categorically submitted that there was no pleading of undue influence and coercion and no particulars have been furnished. General allegations are insufficient even if allegation of fraud in howsoever strong language they are couched. In this regard, Mr. Nama, learned counsel, has placed his reliance in Bishundeo Narain & another versus Seogeni Rai & Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 280 where the apex court had enunciated the law as under : “24. We turn next to the questions of undue influence & coercion. Now it is to be observed that these have not been separately pleaded. It is true they may overlap in part in some cases but they are separate & separable categories in law & must be separately pleaded. 25. We turn next to the questions of undue influence & coercion. Now it is to be observed that these have not been separately pleaded. It is true they may overlap in part in some cases but they are separate & separable categories in law & must be separately pleaded. 25. It is also to be observed that no proper particulars have been furnished. Now if there is one rule which is better established than any other it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence & coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars & the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any Ct. Ought to take notice, however strong the language in which they are couched may be, & the same applied to undue influence & coercion [O.6, R. 4, Civil P.C.].” [Emphasis added] 11. Mr. Nama, learned counsel has also placed his reliance on an apex court judgment in Afsar Shaikh and another versus Soleman Bibi reported in AIR 1976 SC 163 to nourish his submission that the general and nebulous allegation, no particulars nor the plea of undue influence was pleaded in the suit. In Afsar Shaikh (supra), the apex court has observed that while it is true that ‘undue influence’, ‘fraud’, misrepresentation’ are cognate vices and may, in part, overlap in some cases, they are, in law, in the distinct categories, and the provision of Order 6, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requires those particulars are separately pleaded, with specificity, particularity and precision. A general allegation that surfaces is that one of the plaintiffs was a simply old man of ninety years who had reposed great confidence in the defendant but that pleading was much too sufficient in support of undue influence. This required to be noticed by this court, when no issue was framed and no contention was raised on that point at any stage in the court of the first instance, even not before the first appellate court. 12. Further, Mr. Nama, learned counsel has urged this court that the plaintiffs have failed to rebut the irresistible presumption that emanates from a registered document when the same is validly executed. In this respect, Mr. 12. Further, Mr. Nama, learned counsel has urged this court that the plaintiffs have failed to rebut the irresistible presumption that emanates from a registered document when the same is validly executed. In this respect, Mr. Nama, learned counsel has referred to Prem Singh and Others versus Birbal and Others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353 to place reliance on the following passage : “27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.” 13. While summing up, Mr. Nama, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that the evidence of PW-5 [the scribe of the deeds] has been wholly misread by both the courts below to hold that the scribe has testified in the trial by stating that he did not read out the content of the document to the plaintiffs. These amounts to gross perversity and the court even in the second appeal may interfere the said finding which is wholly based on such perverse reading. Mr. Nama, learned counsel has however stated that he would not make his submission on substantial question (ii) as framed by the order dated 22.03.2011. It may be noted that both the courts below have returned the finding that the appellant was enjoying a position of active confidence and as such, the appellant ought to have proved the good faith of the transaction, not otherwise. It has been admitted by the appellant that he was given responsibility on the basis of the trust that he had enjoyed. 14. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the private-respondents has categorically submitted that the original defendant No.1-appellant has admitted in Para-7 of the written statements that the plaintiffs being issueless loved the original defendant No.1 like their son and the defendant No. 1 used to reside in the house of the plaintiff. Therefore, there cannot be an ounce of doubt that the original defendant No.1-appellant occupied the position of active confidence. 15. Without elongating the submission, Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has referred to Mst. Kharbuja Kuer versus Jangbahadur Rai and Others reported in AIR 1963 SC 1203 . Therefore, there cannot be an ounce of doubt that the original defendant No.1-appellant occupied the position of active confidence. 15. Without elongating the submission, Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has referred to Mst. Kharbuja Kuer versus Jangbahadur Rai and Others reported in AIR 1963 SC 1203 . In that report the apex court had occasion to observe as follows : “7. If that be the law, a perusal of the judgments of the three courts demonstrates that while the learned Munsif and the learned Subordinate Judge approached the case from a correct perspective, the High Court misled itself by a wrong approach. The relevant issue we have already extracted shows that the burden was thrown upon the defendant. The first two courts approached the evidence from that standpoint and gave a concurrent finding that it had not been established that the plaintiff executed the document after understanding the nature of the transaction. Apart from the burden of proof, also on the facts found they came to the same conclusion. The High Court, having wrongly held that the approach of the two courts was not correct and having wrongly thrown the burden upon the plaintiff considered the evidence afresh and set aside that finding. As the two courts approached the evidence from a correct perspective and gave a concurrent finding of fact, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the said finding.” [Emphasis added] 16. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel while making submission on the limit of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC has submitted that unless a very specific error of law in the concurrent finding is pointed out, the second appellate court be reluctant to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has placed his reliance in Syeda Rahimunnisa versus Malan Bibi and another reported in AIR 2016 SC 4653 . In that report, the apex court has, inter alia, laid down as under : “39. The respondents having set up this plea were required to prove it with the aid of satisfactory evidence as the burden of proof lay on them being the plaintiffs. As observed (supra), both the courts held on appreciation of evidence that the respondents were failed to establish their adverse possession over the suit-land qua State for want of adequate evidence. The respondents having set up this plea were required to prove it with the aid of satisfactory evidence as the burden of proof lay on them being the plaintiffs. As observed (supra), both the courts held on appreciation of evidence that the respondents were failed to establish their adverse possession over the suit-land qua State for want of adequate evidence. It being a question of fact, a finding on this question was binding on the High Court unless any error of law in such finding had been pointed out. It was not so pointed out.” 17. Having appreciated the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this court has perused the plaint for purpose of finding the materials of fraud by way of inducement in the plaint. The plaintiffs have interalia pleaded that (i) the defendant No.1 was raised by the plaintiffs like their son as they had no children and they decided to execute a will in respect of the land measuring .40 acre in favour of the defendant No. 1 out of love and affection. They had expressed this intention to the defendant No.1. (ii) As per the direction of the defendant No.1, the plaintiffs on good faith went with defendant No.1. The plaintiffs are old and functional illiterate. Taking advancement of their simplicity, the defendants had indulged in the said illegal act. (iii) in the paras 6 and 7 the plaintiffs have pleaded as follows : “6. That, the plaintiffs informed the matter to their relations and respectable persons of the society and requested them to see what was the facts and what deeds had been managed to have executed by the plaintiffs applying fraud in favour of the defendant No.1 deceiving them with fraudulent intention. 7. That, the relations of the plaintiffs made inquiry and camel to know that the defendant No.1 most fraudulently in connivance with defendant No.2 and others defendants have manages to execute Sale Deed in respect of 0.27 Acre of land in favour of the defendant No.1 in the name of execution of will. Having no alternative the plaintiffs informed the matter to the SDM Dharmanagar dated 27.02.2009 for inquiry. Later on they filed a complaint before the SDJM Dharmanagar U/S 420/468/34 IPC against the defendant No.1 & 2 on 13.03.2009 and the Ld. Having no alternative the plaintiffs informed the matter to the SDM Dharmanagar dated 27.02.2009 for inquiry. Later on they filed a complaint before the SDJM Dharmanagar U/S 420/468/34 IPC against the defendant No.1 & 2 on 13.03.2009 and the Ld. Court of SDJM was pleased to send the same of the Dharmangar P.S. for investigation, which is pending now. In the meanwhile the relatives of the plaintiffs obtained certified copy of Sale Deed No.1-172 dated 27.01.2009 on 21.03.2009 wherein it is found that a plot of land measuring 0.27 Acre has been shown to be sold out by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.1. Search was also made seeing that it relates to only 0.27 Acre of land but the defendant managed to execute a registered false and forged documents in respect of total land measuring 0.83 Acre which the plaintiffs came to know from reliable sources and accordingly the relatives of the plaintiffs began to search further and they obtained another 3 nos of forged deeds namely (i) Deed No.1-76 dated 12.01.2009 land measuring 26 satak shown to be executed by the plaintiff No.1 (ii) Deed No.1-77 dated 12.01.2009 land measuring 17 satak shown to be executed by plaintiff No.1 and (iii) Deed No.1-120 dated 17.01.2009 (land measuring 13 satak shown to be executed by plaintiffs). On 16.04.2009 they obtain certified copy of another Sale Deed wherein it is shown that the said land measuring 0.83 Acre has already been sold out by the defendant No.1 most fraudulently to deprive the plaintiffs to defendants No.2, 5 and 6 details of the forged Sale Deeds have been described in the schedule “B” given here in below and here in after called the suit deeds.” (iv) The plaintiff has been possessing the suit land as earlier, as they had not executed any sale deed and at no point of time they had handed over the possession to the defendant No.1 or to any other person. Even though, at one point of time, the defendant No.1 had tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land as described in the schedule-A. 18. Whether these pleadings are sufficient to meet the requirement of Order 6 Rule IV of the CPC in respect of fraud or undue influence. According to this court, these are sufficient enough. Even though, at one point of time, the defendant No.1 had tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land as described in the schedule-A. 18. Whether these pleadings are sufficient to meet the requirement of Order 6 Rule IV of the CPC in respect of fraud or undue influence. According to this court, these are sufficient enough. When the defendant No.1 failed to discharge the onus in terms of provisions of Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act on admitting that he was occupying the position of active confidence of the plaintiffs, it has to be held that both the courts below did commit no error of law in appreciating the evidence. Thus, the defendant No.1-appellant cannot urge for the presumption of valid execution inasmuch as the questioned deeds which have been cancelled by the courts below merely had been registered in the circumstance as narrated by the plaintiffs. Those circumstances have been probabilized, to the satisfaction of the fact finding court. So far the ground of misreading of the evidence of the scribe namely Abdul Rahim (DW-5) is concerned, he has also testified that the plaintiffs are the ownwer and possessors of the suit land and they had no child of their own and they loved the defendant No.1 namely Md. Nur Ahmed as their own son. In para-4 of the examination in chief he had merely stated as follows : “4. That, the plaintiffs namely Ahmed Hussain & Mohammad Hussain jointly sold out total suit land measuring 0.83 acre by executing 4 nos. of regd. Sale deeds which were written by me and I put my signatures in those sale deeds being the writer of the same.” 19. It appears from perusal of records of evidence that even the attesting witnesses were also kept unaware of the content of the deeds. Mansur Ali (DW-8) has admitted in the cross- examination that despite his being an attesting witness, he was not aware of the contents of the impugned deed (Exbt.D) 20. DW-5 nowhere has stated that he read over the content of the deeds to the plaintiff. As the base deed had been executed and registered practising fraud on taking advantage of the active confidence in the manner as stated above, this court is unable to accept the analogy of Mr. DW-5 nowhere has stated that he read over the content of the deeds to the plaintiff. As the base deed had been executed and registered practising fraud on taking advantage of the active confidence in the manner as stated above, this court is unable to accept the analogy of Mr. Nama, learned counsel appearing for the appellants for interfering the concurrent finding as returned by the first appellate court. 21. As an end note, it may be observed that it was a design amongst the defendants to get the land of the plaintiffs transferred to the defendant No.1 and thereafter to the defendants who purchased later on the suit land by few disputed deeds. As the base deed bearing the thumb impression and signatures of the plaintiffs had been held void and cancelled, the deeds executed on the strength of the said base deed, by the defendant No.1 through the defendant No.3, his attorney are invalid and rightly the courts below cancelled those deeds being Deed No.1-76 dated 12.01.2009 (Exbt.5), Deed No.1-120 dated 17.01.2009 (Exbt.6), Deed No.1-172 dated 27.01.2009 (Exbt.7) and Deed No.1-77 dated 12.01.2009 (Exbt.9) by which the suit land measuring 0.83 acres was shown to have been transferred to the defendant No.1, Nur Ahmed since deceased. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merit. Draw the decree accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter.