IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.128 of 2007 1. Indar Patel son of late Shiwanandan Patel 2. Gangeshwar Singh son of Bashishtha Singh, both residents of village Chit Bisharaw, P.O. Sematar, P.S. Guthani, District Siwan. ……Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus Upendra Patel son of Gorakh Patel, resident of village Chit Bisharaw, P.O. Sematar, P.S.Guthani, District Siwan. ..…Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent. For the appellants : Mr. Akshey Lal Pandit, Advocate. For the respondent : None. ----------- 06/ 12.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.353 of 1999 which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for specific performance of contract vide agreement for sale dated 04.07.1997 said to have been executed by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit land. The aforesaid title suit was decreed on contest by the learned 1st Subordinate Judge, Siwan vide his judgment and decree dated 20.01.2005.Against the judgment and decree of the trial court the defendants filed Title Appeal No.13 of 2005 which was dismissed on contest by the learned District Judge, Siwan vide his judgment and decree dated 28.03.2007. From the arguments as well as from the materials on 2 record, including the impugned judgments and decree of learned courts below, it transpires that the defendants admitted the thumb impression of defendant no.1 over the alleged agreement for sale, but it was claimed that his thumb impression was fraudulently obtained on a sada paper which was subsequently converted into an agreement for sale without any knowledge or information to him and it was antedated. However, after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, both the learned courts below came to the specific conclusion that the thumb impression of defendant no.1 over Mahadanama was fully proved, whereas the onus was squarely upon the defendants to prove the same, but they had miserably failed to establish either fraud or antedating by any valid or reliable document. So far objection of the defendants with regard to the age of plaintiff at the time of execution of the document is concerned, both the learned courts below after considering the materials on record came to the specific finding of fact that plaintiff was not minor at the relevant date. So far the question of being ready and willing is concerned, both the learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, specially the pleadings adduced on behalf of the plaintiff came to the specific conclusion that plaintiff had been able to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the decisions of the learned courts below are covered by findings of facts based on 3 specific pleadings and evidence and hence this court does not find any illegality in the said judgments and decree of the learned courts below, nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)