S.P. Goyal, J.

1. This second appeal has been brought from the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, dated October 26,1974 whereby the judgment of the trial Court was reversed and the suit decreed on payment of Rs. 15000/-.

2. Puran Singh respondent, brought this suit for declaration and possession of the land and house in dispute with the allegations that the alleged gift deed dated October 23, 1970, was void and ineffective against his rights, the same having been got executed by undue influence and fraud. According to the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff had three sons who were all murdered. He being not in a position to cultivate the land personally, agreed to lease out the same to the defendants. Consequently, he was brought to Faridkot by the defendants and they instead of lease deed got executed gift deed fraudulently by concealing the facts.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants who controverted the allegations made in the plaint and further pleaded that they were serving plaintiff after the death of his three sons and in lieu of their service, the plaintiff made a gift of his own free volition and that after execution of the gift, they had redeemed the land on payment of Rs. 15000/-.

4. The trial court after recording evidence of the parties, negatived the plea of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The judgment of the trial court was reversed, on appeal, by the learned Additional District Judge and the suit decreed subject to the payment of Rs. 15000/, the mortgage amount paid by the defendants. Dissatisfied with this judgment, the defendants have come up in second appeal.

5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the suit had been wrongly valued for purposes of court fee and pecuniary jurisdiction and if the same was properly valued, no appeal in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge would have been competent. In support of his contention, the learned counsel argued that it was incumbent on the plaintiff to sue for cancellation of the deed and in that case ad valorem fee would be payable under Article 1 Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act. The contention of the learned counsel, however, has no merit and this matter stands concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad : AIR 1973 S.C. 2384, and a Single Bench decision of this Court in Chhota Singh v. Jit Singh (1975) 77 PLR 372 [LQ/PunjHC/1975/46] . In Chhota Singj case (supra), it was held that such a suit could be covered by section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. According to the Punjab amendment when a suit falling under section 7(iv)(c) relates to landed property the Court fee has to be paid on the value of the subject-matter of the suit assessed according to the provisions of section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that the value of the land had been so assessed but he further contended that the value of the house was neither assessed nor court-fee paid thereon. A perusal of the plaint would show that value of the house had not been assessed nor court-fee paid thereon but this matter need not be pursued further as the learned counsel for the respondent stated at the Bar that he does not press his claim for the houses and the decree to that extent may be set aside.

6. The finding of the lower Appellate Court that the gift deed had been got executed by undue influence and fraud is essentially a finding of fact. The learned counsel however, sought to challenge that finding on the ground that there were no adequate reasons to disbelieve the statements of the petition writer and the two attesting witnesses. I am afraid tins would hardly be a ground to interfere with the finding of fact in second appeal. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge would show that the deceased had three married daughters and a number of grand children. There was no apparent reason for making the gift by ignorning the inheritance rights of the daughters and grand children. The transaction was, therefore, found most unconscionable and relying on Lakshmi Amma v. Talengala Narayana Bhatta AIR 1970 S.C. 1267 it was, therefore, held that the facts and the circumstances of this case lead to an irresistible conclusion that a fraud had been practised to procure execution of the impugned gift deed. After discussing the statements of the petition writer and the two witnesses in detail, the learned Additional District Judge held that no reliance could be placed on them and that both the attesting witnesses were interested in the well bring of the defendants had in all probability been procured by them. The statement of the petition-writer was found to be not reliable as he himself admitted that he was not able to remember the facts properly because of his old age.

7. I myself have gone through the evidence of the two eye-witnesses and the petition-writer and found no reason to differ with the finding recorded by the lower Appellate Court. None of the witnesses belongs to the village of the parties and every effort was made to conceal the nature of the transaction so much so to avoid appearance of the vendor before the mutation officer, a power of attorney was executed in favour of a relation of the donee. Taking into consideration all those circumstances and the facts, I have no hesitation in agreeing with the finding of the lower appellate Court that the impungned gift-deed was not executed by the donor of his own free will and was the result of undue influence and fraud practised by the appellants.

8. In view of the above finding, this appeal has no merit is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.