- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C., the defendant appellants 1/1 to 1/9 legal representatives of original defendant Prabhat and defendant no.2 Smt. Sarju Devi have challenged the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2001 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No.1, Jaipur District Jaipur in Civil Suit No.34/2000 (52/1987), Kalu Ram vs. Prabhat & Ors. whereby the civil suit filed by plaintiff-respondent Kalu Ram Sharma for specific performance and for declaration of the sale deed dated 23.4.1997 executed in favour of Sarju Devi as null and void has been decreed which has been affirmed by the first appellate court i.e. Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur vide judgment and decree dated 28.2.2011 in Civil Regular First Appeal No.14/2001 filed by the present appellants except appellant Sarju Devi. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that on 15.5.1986, defendant Prabhat received amount of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff for sale of land of Khasra No.779 measuring 2 Bigha 1 Biswa and handed over possession of the same to him. The plaintiff was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed but the defendant Prabhat did not pay any head to his demands and persuasions made by him ultimately agreement dated 11.2.1987 was executed on a stamp of Rs.5/-. The plaintiff was ready and willing to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement related to him but the defendant was not ready and willing to comply with the terms of the agreement related to him despite a legal notice sent to him through advocate on 21.5.1987 and ultimately in reply to the legal notice dated 3.6.1987, he refused to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Therefore, on 6.7.1987 the suit was filed. From the facts of the case it born out that during pendency of the suit, the defendant Prabhat sold the disputed land to defendant Smt. Sarju Devi vide sale deed dated 23.4.1997. Therefore, it was prayed that the sale deed dated 23.4.1997 be declared illegal and void abinitio and is liable to be quashed being contrary of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the written statement the defendant appellant disputed the facts mentioned in the plaint and came with the case that he never agreed to sell the land of Khasra No.779. He neither took any amount on 15.5.1986 or around it for the sale of the land nor signed any receipt thereof and the documents alleged to have been executed are forged. He is in possession of the disputed land and cultivating the same every year. It was then mentioned that when the defendant was in the custody of the police, the plaintiff with connivance of the police officials and with intention to grab the property of the defendant, got signed some blank papers and stamp papers. Thus it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with costs. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following five issues:- 1.Whether, on 15.5.1986 the defendant agreed to sell his land of Khasra No.779 measuring 2 Bigha 1 Biswa, received Rs.30,000/-, handed over possession of the same and signed the receipt in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of which on 11.2.1987 an agreement to sell on a stamp of Rs.5/- and put thumb impression in the presence of witnesses regarding the above land ? 2.Whether, the plaintiff was ready and willing for the registry therefore, he is entitled for a decree of specific performance against the defendant ? 3.Whether, the plaintiff is entitled to get decree of permanent injunction as per para 'Kha' of the relief ? 4.Relief ? 5.Whether, the agreement to sell dated 23.4.1997 executed in favour of defendant no.2 during the pendency of the suit is illegal, ab initio void and is liable to the quashed ? The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and also got examined Jagdish Brahmin PW.2, Nanu Ram PW.3 and Rameshwar PW.4 and also got exhibited documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. In defence, defendant Prabhat examined himself as DW.1 and got examined Hanuman Sahai Sharma DW.2 and Jagdish Narain Sharma DW.3. He also got exhibited documents Ex.A-1 to A-6. After recording evidence of the parties and hearing both sides, the trial court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff Kalu Ram and against defendant Prabhat and Sarju Devi and, therefore, vide impugned judgment dated 31st August, 2001 decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant appellant filed first appeal before the first appellate court. The first appellate court after hearing both the sides and correctly appreciating the evidence of the parties vide judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2011 upholding the findings of the findings of the trial court on all the issues, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal by the legal representatives of original defendant Prabhat and by defendant Sarju Devi. Counsel for the appellants submits that both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence of the parties and thus, committed error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
(3.) COUNSEL for the plaintiff respondent submits that the findings recorded by both the courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. He further submits that a second appeal by this Court can be entertained only if any substantial question of law is formulated by the appellant or involved in the appeal. Pointing towards memo of the appeal, counsel further submits that no substantial question of law has been formulated in the memo of appeal. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. I have gone through the memo of the appeal, judgments of both the courts below and considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and I find that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. The courts below have properly appreciated the evidence produced by the parties and thus, correctly decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. There is no substance in the second appeal therefore, the same is, dismissed with no orders as to costs.;