Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage. This is defendant's second appeal arising out of Original suit no.19 of 2000 instituted by plaintiff -respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 was defendant no.2 in the suit. The relief claimed in the suit was for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 13.2.1998 registered on 23.2.1998 alleged by the plaintiff to have been executed by appellant -defendant no.1 -Prem. During pendency of suit property in dispute was sold by appellant -defendant no.1 to Babu Ram, respondent no.2 on 16.05.2001. Accordingly, Babu Ram was also impleaded in the suit. Total area of the property in dispute which is in the form of a plot is 25 sq. yard. Agreed sale consideration shown in the agreement was Rs.35,000/ -. It was further shown in the agreement that Rs.28,000/ -had been paid as earnest money. As the agreement was registered hence defendant no.2 was fully aware of the same. He also admitted the said fact but stated that defendant no.1 told him that the agreement was forged.
(2.) CIVIL Judge(Senior Division), Kairana, Muzaffar Nagar through judgment and decree dated 17.9.2007 decreed the suit for specific performance of the agreement. It found the agreement to have been executed by defendant no.1. It is mentioned in the judgment of the trial court that defendant no.1 -Prem himself filed photostat copy of an agreement dated 13.2.1998 as paper no. 60 Ga and in his oral statement he did not admit that to be correct. He further stated that the said paper had been given to him by Shri Nathi (one of the witnesses of the agreement). He admitted his photo on the said document. He further stated that he did not inquire from Shri Nathi about the original of which paper no. 60 Ga was a copy. 4. On the agreement photos of the parties are affixed. Each expert gave evidence in favour of its party. The trial court further held that there was nothing unusual in getting the agreement registered after ten days of execution. The trial court further found that the report of expert adduced by the defendant was not correct and he had taken photocopy of some one else's thump impression. There was some cutting over the figure Rs.7,000/ -in the agreement. The courts below held that cuttings were immaterial and before signature on the agreement correction/cutting had been carried out in the original. The trial court found that agreement had in -fact been executed by defendant no.1 plaintiff was always ready and willing to get the agreement executed and had also given notice in that regard but the defendant did not reach the office of Sub -Registrar on the date which was fixed in the notice for execution of the sale deed. 5. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court defendant no.1 -appellant -Prem filed civil appeal no.99 of 2007 which was dismissed by A.D.J. court No.11, Muzaffar Nagar on 20.9.2011 hence this Second appeal. 6. The judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge is not satisfactory. The manner in which the judgment has been written leaves much to be desired. However, it is a judgment of affirmance and substantially affirms to the requirement of judgment by appellate court. The evidence has been discussed by the lower appellate court. The reference by the lower appellate court to Section -68 of Evidence was utterly mis -placed. Section -68 deals with the proof of the documents which are compulsorily attestable. An agreement for sale is not compulsorily attestable. 7. I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the courts below particularly the trial court which are also findings of fact arrived at after considering the entire evidence on record. The three substantial questions of law stated in the memorandum of appeal are in -fact no substantial question of law. Even otherwise no question of law is involved in this second appeal. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.;