JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Gauri Shanker Yadav and Sri Y.P. Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. This second appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 20th November, 2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. - 1, Etah in Civil Appeal No. - 28 of 2004 reversing the judgment and decree of trial Court dated 3rd August, 2004, whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed. Thus, lower Court has decreed the suit. 3. This appeal was admitted on 7th April, 2014 on following two substantial questions of law: ''1. Whether, the sale-deed dated 23.6.1995 could be cancelled on the alleged ground that it is obtained under influence of liquor when the plaintiff himself tried to get re-conveyance in pursuance of the same sale-deed? 2. Whether, the Lower Appellate Court could decree the suit without specifically setting aside the finding of the trial Court while dismissing the suit?'' 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondents had executed a sale-deed with a right of re-conveyance, on 23rd June, 1995 in favour of the present appellant. However, subsequently he instituted a suit with a pleading that as a matter of fact he was to borrow the loan but in the said process got executed the sale-deed being under influence of liquor administered to him by the defendant appellant on 3rd June, 1995. The defendant appellant contested the suit on the ground that the entire plaint case was unbelievable as the sale-deed was executed consciously with active state of mind by the plaintiff respondent. 5. The trial Court framed a number of issues but the main issues were issue No. - 2 and 9 which related to the question as to whether the plaintiff respondent had executed the sale-deed under the influence of liquor and so his mind did not accompany his hand while executing the document; and as to whether for the additional reasons assigned in the plaint, the sale-deed with right to re-conveyance dated 23rd June, 1995 deserved to be cancelled. 6. 6. The parties led their evidence and the trial Court returned findings of fact that the case set up by the plaintiff that he got executed a sale-deed under the influence of liquor could not be proved and on the contrary facts pleaded by the defendant and evidence brought on record by the parties established that the sale-deed in question was executed by the plaintiff in full sound state of mind without there being any influence of liquor upon him. The Court also proceeded to hold that for the reasons otherwise assigned in the plaint no case for cancellation of sale-deed was made out more especially in the circumstances when the petitioner himself had given notice to the defendant respondent which was brought on record as paper No. 33-A/1 that he would be paying back the entire amount by 26th September, 1996 and, therefore, property of sale-deed be re-conveyed to him by the defendant-respondent. 7. On appeal being filed by the plaintiff-respondent, the appellate Court reversed the finding of fact returned by the trial Court by holding that the testimony of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 fully corroborated the testimony of P.W.-1 regarding he being under influence of liquor and so also being illiterate person, could not understand the intention of the defendant respondent in taking him to the village and getting the document of sale executed. 8. The Court of appeal returned a finding that there was nothing in the statement of P.W.-1 which could have been taken to be an admission in respect of the execution of the sale-deed in question. The Court of appeal has proceeded on the premise that plaintiff respondent being an illiterate person he could not have understood the nature of document, recitals made therein and its implication and has further proceeded to hold that in comparison to the stand of the defendant-appellant the case set up by the plaintiff respondent stood on better footing and worth believing. 9. The Court of appeal also held that the testimony of the marginal witness produced by the defendant appellant only made statement qua the factum of execution of the document and had simply admitted the instrument with a right of re-conveyance. 10. 9. The Court of appeal also held that the testimony of the marginal witness produced by the defendant appellant only made statement qua the factum of execution of the document and had simply admitted the instrument with a right of re-conveyance. 10. Thus the Court below first proceeded to hold that the plaintiff had executed sale-deed under the influence of liquor and then held that he could not have known the exact nature of the instrument and so the finding returned in negative by the trial Court was upset. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued on substantial question of law No. 1, that the sale-deed being a registered document there would be a presumption of it being validly executed though of course, such a presumption is rebuttable but in order to rebut the presumption the person denying the execution of document has to prove that in what circumstances he would be taken to have not known the nature of the document. It is argued that in the instant case the notice was issued by the plaintiff respondent himself which is a paper No. 33A/1 that he would be returning the money by 26th February, 1996 and, therefore, the property be re-conveyed to him would go on to demonstrate beyond doubt that he had full knowledge of document of sale being in existence with the right of re-conveyance. 12. It is further argued that it was a duty of the plaintiff to have cross-examined the marginal witnesses with suggestive queries regarding the circumstances in which sale-deed got executed, but nothing as such has come in the evidence, inasmuch as Court below while reversing the findings of trial Court and referring the testimony of the marginal witness D.W.-3 absolutely gone on to record a misplaced finding that it being a merely indicative of the execution of an instrument with a right to re-conveyance, would not travel beyond to hold the sale-deed to be a validly executed document. 13. It is further argued that this above by itself would not suffice otherwise the requisite parameters upon which the findings of the trial Court were required to be reversed on the issue whether the document in question was executed under the influence of liquor. 14. 13. It is further argued that this above by itself would not suffice otherwise the requisite parameters upon which the findings of the trial Court were required to be reversed on the issue whether the document in question was executed under the influence of liquor. 14. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that sole issue in the plaint case was that the document of sale was a void document and the entire construction of the plaint case was only to set up with this cause of action to maintain the suit. The right to get the property under the sale by way of re-conveyance, would be a different issue and could have been an alternative prayer in the plaint but that was not so and it was sought to be added by way of amendment at the stage of first appeal but the same had been rejected and that order was not further challenged before any higher Court. 15. It is, therefore, argued that once the instrument has been admitted to be a valid document by the conduct of a party, the lower appellate Court was not justified in holding the document to be void and invalid one. 16. Coming to the first substantial question of law the plea taken in the plaint that the plaintiff was a habitual taker of alcohol and, therefore, under the influence of the alcohol he would often loose his mind and consciousness, and so the document of sale being executed under influence of liquor was bad, it would be the burden upon him to prove this fact. 17. The trial Court discussed the oral testimony of the plaintiff under his judgment. While deciding the issue Nos. 2 and 9, the Court discussed that the record of the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in which he stated that on the fateful day i.e. 23rd June, 1995 he was administered alcohol by the defendant and got the instrument written and signed by the plaintiff and that the defendant had no possession over the land and he had already filed restoration application in the mutation case. The Court referred to the cross-examination of the plaintiff in which he had stated that he was having half share in respect of the suit land and that he was administered alcohol from 8:00 a.m. till 12:00 p.m. However, he did not know as to how his photo was taken but he has admitted his photo affixed upon the sale-deed bearing No. - 32-A/1 but denied his signature. The trial Court recorded that in the examination-in-chief affidavit he admitted that after the execution of sale-deed he never made complaint to any administrative officer nor, did he lodge any report against defendant. The trial Court recorded that during the cross-examination though he claimed that he was under influence of alcohol but admitted the photograph that was affixed upon the paper and it was not showing him under the influence of alcohol. The Court also observed that during the cross-examination he claimed to have various documents in support of his argument but none of them he had filed. He also admitted that P.W.-2 had not visited with him at the time of registration of instrument of sale and he was somewhere in village Patiyali. The Court also referred to and discussed the testimony of P.W.-2, namely Surajpal, who also claimed that the sale-deed got executed by administering alcohol to the plaintiff. However, he refused to have any knowledge regarding any consideration of Rs. 69,000/- passed on the plaintiff but he had overheard in the village that such a conditional sale-deed was executed. He also claimed that he was in the village from morning till evening of 23rd June, 1995. Thus, the Court found that the testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 to be contradictory to each other. Regarding testimony of P.W.-3 who also claimed that when he had visited the seat of the Advocate he had seen that defendant was getting some instrument written and that the plaintiff was seriously under the influence of alcohol and that no talks were held before him regarding sale of any agriculture holding but during cross-examination he admitted that a Panchayat was convened in the village, however, he did not recollect exact time and place when panchayat was convened and he also denied sale-deed was got written before him and that any transaction took place before him. 18. The Court, in the circumstances, disbelieved the testimony of the P.W.-3. 18. The Court, in the circumstances, disbelieved the testimony of the P.W.-3. The Court held that considerations are paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of instrument and it is written so on the overleaf but no such evidence has been led by the plaintiff in support of his claim he did not receive any consideration. The Court held that since P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 did not admit any transfer of transaction from the defendant to the plaintiff before them, it was the duty of the plaintiff to lead evidence in support of his claim which he utterly failed. The Court also returned a finding to the effect that the petitioner having failed to rebut the notice sent by the defendant, and the fact that a question by the plaintiff's Advocate was suggested to D.W.-1 that as per the agreement for sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- were returned demonstrated itself admission of sale-deed by the plaintiff. Thus, the Court held that sale-deed was absolutely proved to be genuine and valid sale-deed executed by the plaintiff to the defendant. The Court decided the issues in favour of defendant respondent and dismissed the suit. 19. This finding has been reversed by the Court of appeal on the ground that attending circumstances to the execution of the sale would themselves demonstrate that the sale-deed got executed by the plaintiff while he was under influence of the alcohol. The Court of appeal believed certain instances cited before it that even previously plaintiff had been challaned for being under influence of alcohol in public and that he had come to know about the execution of sale-deed only on mutation case being allowed in favour of the defendant and in respect of which he had filed a restoration application to hold sale-deed was executed by administering alcohol to the plaintiff. The Court of appeal held that merely because he had admitted his photographs and thumb impression, it would not be sufficient to hold that he consciously executed the sale-deed. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the finding so returned by the Court of appeal has drawn the attention of the Court towards plaintiff's own admission that he was ready to get the land re-conveyed to him pursuant to the conditions laid in the sale-deed, as he had arranged the money to return. 21. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the finding so returned by the Court of appeal has drawn the attention of the Court towards plaintiff's own admission that he was ready to get the land re-conveyed to him pursuant to the conditions laid in the sale-deed, as he had arranged the money to return. 21. Thus, I find that the Court of appeal has virtually reversed the finding of the trial Court on relevant issue on the basis of surmises and conjunctures by holding that merely because the plaintiff admitted his thumb impression on the document and his photographs would not amount to his admission. The Court of appeal proceeded to believe that since the plaintiff had been previously challaned for taking alcohol, he ought to have been taken under influence of alcohol. No such challan had been filed and a mere statement of fact has been believed. The Court has failed to consider his own admission that he was ready for taking re-conveyance as per the sale-deed. 22. Thus, in my view, the findings of fact have been wrongly reversed by the Court of first appeal in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence available on record in support of the plaintiff's case that he executed the sale-deed under the influence of alcohol as he was not consciously knowing as to what instrument he was signing. The substantial question of law, therefore stands answered in favour of the appellant. 23. Since, I have already held that lower appellate Court has not been justified in reversing the finding of fact of trial Court and trial Court judgment is liable to be upheld, I need not to go on the second substantial question of law raised. 24. Thus, the second appeal stands allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Court of appeal is set aside and that judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is restored. 25. Cost made easy.