JUDGMENT : PRATAP KRISHNA LOHRA, J. 1. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this first appeal to challenge judgment and decree dated 07.04.2018 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Bhilwara (for short ‘learned’ trial Courts) learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment, dismissed her suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 24.12.2005 and perpetual injunction. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that appellant-plaintiff laid a suit against first respondent-defendant seeking cancellation of sale-deed dated 24.12.2005 and perpetual injunction, inter-alia, on the ground that sale-deed pertaining to residential house constructed on a plot ad-measuring 37.5 ft. X 85 ft. and situated at Ghati Mohalla, Tehsil Hamirgarh, District Bhilwara, was never sold by her to the respondent. As per the appellant, she simply executed a mortgage deed in favour of respondent and in lieu of Rs.20,000/-, which she had borrowed from him. In the plaint, appellant has castigated first respondent for practicing fraud in getting the document executed clandestinely. The appellant has also insinuated respondent that he has taken advantage of her old age and illiteracy in inducing her to execute a document purportedly mortgage deed but in fact got sale-deed executed. 3. The suit is contested by respondent-defendant refuting all the allegations contained in the plaint. Besides joining issue with the appellant-plaintiff on merits of the case, respondent has also taken shelter of the law of limitation by urging in written statement that suit is barred by limitation, inasmuch as, the same has been filed nine years after execution of the sale-deed. 4. Learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, settled five issues for determination. 5. The rival parties led their evidence. The appellant-plaintiff with a view to substantiate her case herself appeared in the witness box and also examined one more witness P.W.2 Heera Lai besides tendering four documents, which were exhibited as Ex. 1 to Ex. 4 respectively. Contrary to the evidence of the appellant, respondent-defendant with a view to authenticate its defence, appeared himself in the witness-box and also examined P.W.2 Gopal, who was one of the attesting witness to the instrument of sale. 6. Learned trial Court, considering the first three issues as inter-related, proceeded to decide all these issues simultaneously. 7. Upon appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court has found that pleading and proof of the appellant to assail impugned sale-deed are lacking requisite sting to dislodge the presumption about registered instrument. 6. Learned trial Court, considering the first three issues as inter-related, proceeded to decide all these issues simultaneously. 7. Upon appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court has found that pleading and proof of the appellant to assail impugned sale-deed are lacking requisite sting to dislodge the presumption about registered instrument. The Court has also observed that such bald and unsubstantiated allegations are not sufficient to prove that first respondent-defendant practiced fraud with the appellant. It may also be observed here that although appellant has made a positive assertion about borrowing Rs.20,000/- from first respondent and in lieu thereof mortgaging the suit property with him, but during trial neither any documentary evidence nor any receipt showing alleged transaction was proved. That being the position, learned trial Court completely discarded the aforesaid plea of the appellant. In substance, learned trial Court, while deciding Issues No. 1 to 3 in favour of first respondent and against the appellant, has considered the evidence threadbare for arriving at the conclusion against her. Learned trial Court has also placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in case of Prem Singh & Ors. Vs. Birbal & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 353 . The Court held:- “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 No. 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.” 8. The same view is reiterated by Supreme Court in a subsequent judgment in case of Vishwanath Bapurao Sabale Vs. Shalinibai Nagappa Sabale & Ors. (2009) 12 SCC 101 wherein the Court held:- “12. All the four deeds executed on 02.07.1955 are registered documents. They carry a presumption of valid execution. There is no proof to show that the said documents were sham or nominal. The learned Courts below have clearly held that the appellant failed to discharge the heavy onus to him.” 9. Therefore, in totality of circumstances and upon perusal of evidence and other materials available on record, I am unable to find any infirmity in the finding recorded by learned trial Court on Issue Nos. 1 to 3. The learned Courts below have clearly held that the appellant failed to discharge the heavy onus to him.” 9. Therefore, in totality of circumstances and upon perusal of evidence and other materials available on record, I am unable to find any infirmity in the finding recorded by learned trial Court on Issue Nos. 1 to 3. The other issue, i.e. Issue No. 5 about limitation, learned trial Court, upon examining the materials available on record and the fact that impugned sale deed was executed in the year 2005, found the suit to be barred by limitation. Learned trial Court recorded a definite finding that suit is filed after a lapse of nine years and the appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove that she was unaware about the document during the subsistence of limitation i.e. three years. It goes without saying that appellant in her statements has very candidly admitted about execution of the document but simply disputed the nature of document. From the document, it is also bone out that possession was handed over to the respondent, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly concluded that appellant was having knowledge about execution of the instrument. Thus, the finding on Issue No. 5 recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be faulted. 10. A bare perusal of the record as well as impugned judgment, in my view, the judgment impugned is based on sound appreciation of evidence. Thus, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the findings and conclusion of learned Court below. 11. While it is true that the appellate Court while deciding the appeal is required to adhere to order 41 Rule 31 CPC but when the Court has concurred with the findings and conclusions of leaned trial Court, it is not incumbent upon it to encumber the judgment with detailed discussion of evidence. Supreme Court, while examining Order 41 Rule 31, in case of Girja Nandini Devi & Ors. Vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhury AIR 1967 SC 1124 ), observed that appellate Court in the concurring judgment need not discuss evidence in detail. The Court held: “It is true that the High Court did not enter upon a reappraisal of the evidence, but it generally approved of the reasons adduced by the Trial Court in support of its conclusion. Vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhury AIR 1967 SC 1124 ), observed that appellate Court in the concurring judgment need not discuss evidence in detail. The Court held: “It is true that the High Court did not enter upon a reappraisal of the evidence, but it generally approved of the reasons adduced by the Trial Court in support of its conclusion. We are unable to hold that the learned Judges of the High Court did not, as is contended before us, consider the evidence. It is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the Trial Court on the evidence either to restate the effect of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the Trial Court. Expression of general agreement with reasons given by the Court decision of which is under appeal would ordinarily suffice.” 12. In view of foregoing discussion, I feel disinclined to interfere in the matter. 13. Consequently, the appeal fails and same is hereby rejected.