JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J —Appellant (herein after referred to as the plaintiff) , filed a suit for declaration and injunction against respondent (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) , to the effect that she is owner in possession of the suit land as described in impugned judgments and decrees passed by the court below and the gift deed 13.4.1999 Ext.D1, registered with Sub-Registrar, Solan, qua the suit land, is totally wrong, illegal, null and void abinitio as the same is result of fraud and misrepresentation. 2. In nutshell, case of the plaintiff as projected in the plaint was that she intended to execute a gift deed in favour of the defendant to the extent of five biswas of land only, whereas defendant in connivance with her husband scribe and marginal witnesses, fraudulently and deceitfully got the gift deed, executed qua land measuring 11 bighas 12 biswas. Defendant while refuting aforesaid claim of the plaintiff claimed that since her parents had died in her childhood, she was brought up by the plaintiff and her husband. Defendant further claimed that her marriage was solemnized with Narayanu Ram by the plaintiff and husband. Defendant further claimed that after the death of husband of the plaintiff, plaintiff remained with her and out of love and affection, she executed gift deed (Ext.D1) , in her favour bequeathing land measuring 11 bighas 12 biswas situated at mauza khair, pargana Bharoli, Tehsil and District Solan. Defendant further claimed that gift deed Ext.D1 was executed by the plaintiff in sound state of mind in the presence of scribe and the marginal witnesses and same was subsequently registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Solan. Defendant categorically denied that gift deed is result of fraud and misrepresentation and physical possession of the suit land was never delivered to her at the time of execution of the gift deed. Defendant claimed that since she has been in the physical possession of the suit land, there is no question of causing interference to the suit land as alleged by the plaintiff. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, following issues came to be framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff had adopted one Shri Prem Chand of Village Khair and who is managing the whole affairs of the plaintiff, as alleged?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 3. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, following issues came to be framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff had adopted one Shri Prem Chand of Village Khair and who is managing the whole affairs of the plaintiff, as alleged?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the gift deed dated 13.4.1999 registered with Sub Registrar, Solan as document No. 279 is wrong, illegal, null and void abinitio, as alleged ? OPP 4. Whether the revenue entries including mutation No. 135 dated 28.5.1999 are also wrong, illegal, null and void abinition?OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the suit against the defendant ?OPD 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?OPD 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 8. Relief. 3. Subsequently, learned trial Court on the basis of evidence led on record by the respective parties, dismissed the aforesaid suit filed by the plaintiff and held gift deed dated 13.4.1999, to be legal and binding upon the parties. Plaintiff, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, filed an appeal in the court of learned District Judge, Solan, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 4.7.2007. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, laying therein challenge to the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. 4. This Court vide order dated 11.7.2008, admitted the instant appeal on the following substantial questions of law Nos. 1 and 2. "1. In the absence of specific evidence or non examination of Sub-Registrar regarding execution of Gift Deed Ext.D-1, whether the defendant is entitled for the benefit of presumption of section 60 of Registration Act. 2. Whether the statement of witness DW3 in whose presence neither, the alleged Gift Deed D-1 was presented, endorsed and attested nor registered can be relied upon especially in the circumstances when its execution is disputed. 5. 2. Whether the statement of witness DW3 in whose presence neither, the alleged Gift Deed D-1 was presented, endorsed and attested nor registered can be relied upon especially in the circumstances when its execution is disputed. 5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the record, this Court is not inclined to agree with contention of learned counsel for the appellant that defendant was not able to prove on record that gift deed Ext.D1, was not a result of fraud and collusion, rather this Court having carefully examined evidence led on record by the defendants, has no hesitation to conclude that defendant successfully proved on record that plaintiff of her own volition and without there being external pressure, executed the gift deed No. 279 dated 13.4.1999, in sound state of mind in favour of the defendant bequeathing land measuring 11 bighas 12 biswas. 6. In the case at hand, this is none of the case of the plaintiff that she had not executed any gift deed in favour of the defendant, rather her case is that she was taken to the office of Tehsildar by the defendant and her husband for execution of gift deed with regard to 5 biswas of land, whereas defendant by mis-representation obtained the gift deed qua the land measuring 11 bighas 12 biswas fraudulently and deceitfully. There appears to be no dispute, rather stands duly admitted by the plaintiff that defendant was brought-up from the age of 3 years by the plaintiff and her husband. Similarly, there is no dispute that the plaintiff got defendant married to one Narayanyu Ram. It also emerges from the evidence available on record that after the death of her husband, plaintiff had been residing with the defendant of and on and she on two occasions, had executed two wills i.e. one in favour of the defendant and one in favour of the present appellant, in the year 1991. It also emerges from the evidence available on record that subsequent to execution of aforesaid two wills, plaintiff executed another will in favour of the defendant bequeathing her entire property, both the wills were duly registered. 7. It also emerges from the evidence available on record that subsequent to execution of aforesaid two wills, plaintiff executed another will in favour of the defendant bequeathing her entire property, both the wills were duly registered. 7. In the present case, defendant with a view to prove execution of gift deed by the deceased Laxmi Devi in her favour examined attesting witness namely Yoginder Singh as DW2, DW3 Kirpa Ram, Senior Assistant in the office of Sub-Registrar, DW4 Chinta Mani, stamp vender and DW 5 Veena Sharma, scribe. DW2, who happened to be grandson of the plaintiff categorically, stated that plaintiff of her own volition and without there being any external pressure executed gift deed in favour of the defendant. He categorically stated that the plaintiff executed gift deed qua 11 bighas 12 biswas of land in favour of the defendant. It has also come in his statement that at the time of registration of gift deed, enquiry was also conducted by the Sub-Registrar from the executor as to the nature of the document. He further stated that gift deed Ext.D-1, was executed by the plaintiff in his as well as Narayanu Ram''s presence. This witness during his cross-examination categorically admitted his relationship with defendant and stated that gift deed was executed in his presence and he had put his signatures on the alleged gift deed. 8. Dw3 Kirpa Ram, Senior Assistant in the office of Sub Registrar, Solan, who had brought the record pertaining to gift deed No. 279 dated 13.4.1999 also proved will No. 70 Ext.D1, registered with office of Sub-Registrar, having endorsement Ext.DW3/F. He categorically stated that on 30.4.1999, plaintiff had executed gift deed in favour of Balwinder Singh and Roshni Devi. This witness also proved endorsement on the back side of the gift deed i.e. Ext.DW3A to Ext.DW 3D. 9. Dw4, Chinta Mani, stamp vender also stated that on 9.4.1999, Laxmi Devi, widow of Chandanu Ram, had bought stamp papers wroth Rs. 2,000/- and he had made an endorsement Ext.DW1/A, on the back side of the stamp paper. DW4 also stated that he had sold stamp papers of Rs. 1950 to Laxmi Devi on 12.4.1999. He stated that though she was not personally known to him, but she had purchased the stamp papers for the purpose of gift deed. 10. 2,000/- and he had made an endorsement Ext.DW1/A, on the back side of the stamp paper. DW4 also stated that he had sold stamp papers of Rs. 1950 to Laxmi Devi on 12.4.1999. He stated that though she was not personally known to him, but she had purchased the stamp papers for the purpose of gift deed. 10. Dw5, Veena Sharma, document writer, also stated that she scribed the gift deed as per instructions imparted to her by the plaintiff Laxmi Devi. 11. Another defendant witness namely Adv. S.K. Pandit, also stated that in the year, 1982, he started practice at District Courts Solan and on 18.7.1993, he had issued notice Ext.DW5/A on the instructions of Laxmi Devi. 12. It is quite apparent from the record that at the time of registration of the gift deed, inquiry was conducted by Sub-Registrar, from the executor as to the nature of the document she proposed to execute. Defendant by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence has successfully proved on record that gift deed Ext.D1 is not the result of fraud or misrepresentation, rather same has been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in sound state of mind. It has specifically come in the statement of defendant witnesses that at the time of registration of gift deed, inquiry was conducted by the sub-registrar from the executor as to the nature of the document. This Court is not persuaded to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that no reliance, if any, could be placed on the version of aforesaid defendant witnesses. Since defendant with a view to prove execution of gift deed in her favour not only examined marginal witnesses, rather examined DW3, DW4 and DW5, and as such, omission, if any, to examine Sub-Registrar, who registered the gift deed, cannot be a basis/ground to hold that defendant was not able to prove valid execution of the gift deed. 13. Needless to say, once defendant successfully proved that will was not the result of fraud or misrepresentation, defendant is/was entitled to benefit of Section 60 of the Registration Act, which specifically proves that document signed, sealed and dated by the registering officer shall be admissible for the purpose of proving that the document stands duly registered in manner provided under the Registration Act, 1908. 14. 14. Having carefully perused impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned court below vis-a vis evidence adduced on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that court below placed undue reliance upon the statement of DW3, who stated that gift deed was presented, endorsed and attested by the subregistrar Solan. Similarly, this Court also finds no force in the argument of leaned counsel for the plaintiff that no reliance, if any, could be placed upon the statement of DW3, because at the time of registration of gift deed, he was not present. Careful perusal of impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned court below clearly suggests that it is not only the statement of DW3 Kirpa Ram, Senior Assistant in the office of sub-Registrar, Solan, which weighed with the learned court below to conclude that plaintiff had executed the gift deed Ext.D1, in favour of the defendant bequeathing thereby 11 bighas 12 biswas of land in favour of the defendant, rather court below taking note of statements of other witnesses i.e. DW2 Yoginder Singh, DW4 Chinta Mani, stamp vender and DW5 Veena Sharma, scribe, rightly came to conclusion that gift deed in question was executed by the plaintiff with her own volition in sound state of mind. DW3 Kirpa Ram Senior Assistant while proving registration of the gift deed categorically stated that on 30.4.1999, Laxmi Devi had executed a gift deed in favour of Balwinder Singh and Roshani Devi. He also proved endorsement on the back side of the gift deed. It also emerges from the record that the Laxmi Devi had some dispute with the appellant Roshni Devi and she had got issued legal notice to them through Advocate namely S.K. Pandit (DW5) on 8.7.1993, specifically informing therein with regard to the execution of registered will in favour of the defendant. Plaintiff has been also not able to dispute that Laxmi Devi had made another will in 1998 in favour of defendant bequeathing whole of her property and as such, there appears to be no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that defendant is a stranger to Laxmi Devi. Plaintiff has been also not able to dispute that Laxmi Devi had made another will in 1998 in favour of defendant bequeathing whole of her property and as such, there appears to be no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that defendant is a stranger to Laxmi Devi. This Court finds considerable force in the argument of learned counsel for the defendant that gift Deed Ext.D1 was executed by the Laxmi Devi in a sound state of mind bequeathing therein 11 bighas and 12 biswas in favour of the defendant and as such, finds no reason to differ with the finding returned by the courts below, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 15. Now this Court deems it proper to deal with another contention put forth by the learned counsel representing the defendant that in view of the concurrent finding recorded by the court below, this court has very limited jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence. It is well settled by now that concurrent finding of fact and law, recorded by the courts below cannot be interfered unless finding so recorded are shown to be perverse. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others , (2015) 4 SCC 264 , relevant para whereof reads as under:- "16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs have established their right in ''A'' schedule property. In the light of concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the ''A'' schedule property for road and that she could not have full fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to plaintiffs'' right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained." 16. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by both the learned courts below cannot be interfered with unless same are found to be perverse to the extent that no judicial person could ever record such findings. In the case at hand, as has been discussed in detail, there is no perversity as such in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below, rather same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence and as such, same deserves to be upheld. 17. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court is of the view that findings returned by the trial Court below, which were further upheld by the first appellate Court, do not warrant any interference of this Court as findings given on the issues framed by the trial Court below as well as specifically taken up by this Court to reach the root of the controversy appear to be based on correct appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. Hence, the appeal fails and dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.