P.N.Nag, J. - (1.) THIS appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1982 passed by District Judge, Dehradun whereby the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 18-4-72 has been dismissed and thereby the judgment of the trial court, which has decreed the suit has been reversed.
(2.) AT the time of admission of the appeal this Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law (b) and (c) as enumerated by the counsel for the appellant in the memo of appeal. The same are reproduced below :- "(b) Whether the defendants nos. 2, 3 and 4 were bonafide purchasers for value without notice to the agreement executed in plaintiff's favour ? (c) Whether on proof that plaintiff has paid Rs. 5.000/ - as earnest money at the. time of execution of the agreement in his favour he was entitled to refund of that amount with interest ?" Sri M. S. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the agreement of said which the plaintiff entered with Bali Chand, respondent no 2. is a genuine document and, therefore, he is entitled to a decree of specific performance of contract and the finding recorded by the appellate court that this document (Ext- 6) is fictitious, is perverse and no reasonable man can come to this conclusion. The circumstances enumerated by the learned District Judge are perverse: which cannot lead to an inference that the document is fictitious. I have given due consideration to this argument but I am unable to accept this submission on the ground firstly that no substantial question of law has been formulated by the Court on this question and secondly some of the circumstances enumerated by the learned District Judge for holding that the document is factious cannot be called perverse. Merely if there can be possibility of two opinion on this finding which is essentially a finding of fact, that cannot be a ground for interfering in the second appeal.
(3.) IN view of the above finding it is not necessary to decide the other substantial question of law formulated by the Court that defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 were bona fids purchaser for value without notice to the agreement executed in plaintiff's favour. IN the light of what has been discussed above there is no force in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.;