1 S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.472/2006. Kundanmal. vs. Gomaram and another. Date : 17.4.2007 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.A Chhangani, for the appellant. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff. The plaintiff/appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.4.2006 by which the first appellate court allowed the appeal of the defendant no.2, purchaser of the property, and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 31.3.1999 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 20.5.1988. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was Karta of joint Hindu family. The defendant no.1, his real brother, executed a deed in samwat year 2025 admitting that the defendant no.1 will be maintained by the plaintiff and his family members 2 and the defendant no.1 will not have any right in the property in dispute. That document was relied upon by the trial court and the defendant no.1's case is that the defendant no.2, instead of getting the mortgage deed executed from the defendant no.1, got the sale deed executed. In substance, the defendant no.1 impliedly pleaded the case so as to give benefit to the plaintiff. The defendant no.2 submitted that the property was partitioned between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.1 sold the property to the defendant no.2 and gave possession of the property. The first appellate court discarded the document set up by the plaintiff and which was admitted by the defendant no.1, brother of the plaintiff, and thereafter, held that the sale deed was executed by the defendant no.1 for a valid consideration on 20.5.1988 and the plaintiff has no right to get it cancelled. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal involves substantial question of law because of the reason that the documents have been wrongly interpreted by the first appellate court and thereby, the first appellate court committed error of law. It is also submitted that the trial court gave reasoned judgment which has been reversed by the first appellate 3 court without assigning any lawful reasons and by wrongly interpreting the documents. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the reasons given by the two courts below. The plaintiff and the defendant no.1 are the real brothers. The defendant no.1 sold the property to the defendant no.2 by registered sale deed dated 20.5.1988. The defendant no.1's case was that instead of getting the mortgage deed executed from the defendant no.1, the defendant no.2 got executed the sale deed registered. Strangely, the defendant no.1 did not choose to challenge the sale deed despite knowledge. The plaintiff set up a case that the defendant no.1 executed a deed in his favour and by reading that deed, it appears that, that deed is not a registered document and assuming for the sake of argument that by that document, an arrangement was made, even then, if the first appellate court, after considering the document found that said document is a forged one, then, it is not a case of interpretation of document but question of credibility of the documents in the facts and circumstances. In view of the above, I do not find any 4 substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Consequently, this second appeal, having no merit, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya