1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : J U D G M E N T : S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.131/2009. (Satpal & Others Vs. LRs of Sriram) DATE OF JUDGMENT : May 11, 2009. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ____________________________________ Mr. B.B. Singh for the appellants. BY THE COURT : The instant second appeal has been filed under Section 100, C.P.C. against the concurrent finding of the trial Court as well as appellate Court. More specifically, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2009 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Raisinghnagar in Civil Appeal No.15/2004, whereby, the learned lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant-appellants and upheld the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raisinghnagar in Civil Original Case No.14/2001, whereby, the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent. According to the facts of the case, civil suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff late Sriram s/o Ram Lal before the Civil 2 Judge (Senior Division), Raisinghnagar against defendants Bidami, Raja Ram, Satpal, Hanuman, Gomadram, Imanati Devi, Guddi Devi, Sumi Devi, Ramsnahi, Parmeshwari and Shankar Lal, in which, it was stated that the land in dispute was in possession of the defendants and was sold for personal need by the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants No.2 to 10 and, for that purpose, an agreement was executed on 24.02.1979, in which, sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- was agreed upon. The said land was sold through power of attorney of defendant late Ladu Ram. As per the plaintiff-respondent, in the suit, it was stated that he has spent huge amount to make the land in question capable for agricultural use and the defendants are not executing the sale deed in his favour as per the agreement arrived at in between the parties. Therefore, it was prayed by the plaintiff-respondent that decree for specific performance of the agreement may be passed. Reply was filed in the suit and after filing of the reply by the present appellants, in all, ten issues were framed for adjudication. The learned trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence coming on record decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and it has been held that the agreement dated 24.03.1979 is a valid document and, therefore, categorical finding was given by the trial Court that the agreement in question is not a forged document and legal heirs of late Ladu Ram, the present appellants are under obligation to abide by the same and execute the sale-deed in favour of the 3 plaintiff-respondent. Aforesaid judgment dated 03.09.2004, passed after due consideration and appreciation of the entire evidence, was further challenged by way of filing appeal by the present appellants. The learned lower appellate Court, however, dismissed the appeal and gave the finding that the agreement in question with regard to agreement for sale of property in question situated in Chak 18 NP, Muraba No.25, kila 1 to 10, 10 biswa of kila 13 and kila 14 and 15, total 12 bigha 10 biswa was sold by agreement by late Ladu Ram through power of attorney. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that both the Courts below have committed error and decided the matter contrary to the law, therefore, both the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below deserve to be set aside. It is further argued that the learned lower appellate Court has erred while deciding the issues and, in fact, the land in dispute cannot be sold because at the time of executing the agreement on 24.03.1979, the land was gair-khatedari, therefore, the contract itself was ab initio void. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and also perused the entire record of the case. In this matter, the learned trial Court framed ten issues and issue No.1 which was very important with regard to execution of the agreement has been decided after appreciating the entire evidence of the case including the documentary 4 evidence produced on record and it has been held that the agreement was executed for a consideration of 40,000/-. Further, upon issue No.9 with regard to treating the agreement ab initio illegal, the learned trial Court gave the finding that contention of the defendants is not acceptable in view of the fact that the land in question was permanently allotted to late Ladu Ram. Therefore, adjudication made by the trial Court with regard to issue No.9 is based upon finding of fact. So also, the learned trial Court has thoroughly considered the entire evidence and passed the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The lower appellate Court has also upheld the issue-wise finding given by the trial Court. In my opinion, therefore, nothing survives in this second appeal because as per the grounds incorporated in the memo of appeal, so also, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, no substantial question of law emerges for consideration in the matter. Therefore, there is no occasion for interfering in the concurrent finding arrived at by both the Courts below. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this appeal. This second appeal is hereby dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.