IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.191 of 2009 Shankar Prasad Singh, Son of Late Musafir Singh, R/o Village- Baikatpur, P.S.- Khushrupur, District-Patna---------------------------------- --------------------------------------Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant. Versus Satyendra Narain Singh, Son of Late Tripit Narain Singh, R/oVillage- Baikatpur, P.S.- Khushrupur, District-Patna.--------------------------------- -------------------------------------Defendant/Appellant/Respondent. For Appellant: M/s Pushkar Narain Shahi with Onkar Nath, Advocate. ----------- 4. 22.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. The plaintiff has filed T.S.No. 207 of 2003 for specific performance of contract for sale of the land mentioned in the schedule of the plaint in pursuance to the agreement for sale dated 12.12.2002. The relevant case of the plaintiff, in short, as made out in the plaint is that the defendant was in need of money and so he executed an agreement for sale on 12.12.2002 in favour of the plaintiff for sale of his 84 ½ decimal of land for total consideration money of Rs. 1,05,000/- out of which the plaintiff paid Rs. 50,000/- by way of advance. It was further agreed that the balance consideration money would be paid by the plaintiff within two years and the sale deed was to be executed thereafter. The 2 defendant’s denial to perform his part of the contract has led the plaintiff to file the suit for specific performance of contract as abovesaid. The defendant appeared in the suit and has denied the valid execution of the agreement for sale. The defendant’s specific case was that the plaintiff had acted fraudulently and taking benefit of his addiction to Ganja, Bhang and other intoxicants he got the agreement for sale in question while the defendant was under intoxication .The defendant has also raised other defences which are not relevant for the present appeal . After hearing the parties and considering the evidence, the trial court came to the finding that the defendant’s case of addiction to intoxication and the allegation that the plaintiff got the agreement for sale in question fraudulently while the defendant was in the state of intoxication was not correct and held that the agreement for sale was valid and legally enforceable document. Further the requisite statutory finding regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract was also recorded in favour of the plaintiff and thus the suit was decree. 3 In appeal, the appellate court considered the submissions of the appellant/plaintiff before it and examined the pleading and evidence of the parties on record. After the detail analysis of the evidence on record, the appellate court below has come to the finding that the agreement for sale in question has been obtained by the plaintiff by putting him in state of intoxication. It has further been found that no earnest money had been paid to the defendant as claimed by the plaintiff. On the basis of these findings, the learned appellate court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the material evidence on the behalf of the plaintiff have not been correctly appreciated by the appellate court while recording the findings against the plaintiff. He has strenuously referred to the evidence particularly the deposition of the defendant to emphasise that in view of the own statement of the defendant, the agreement for sale (Ext. 1) is proved to be valid and legal document. It has further been contended that once the necessary facts indicating healthy state of mind of the defendant are established then the burden of proof would be upon the 4 defendant to prove that the agreement for sale (Ext.1) has been obtained by fraudulent means. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the judgments of the courts below it is clear that the pleadings, evidence and submissions of the appellant/plaintiff before it have been fully considered and appreciated by the appellate court below. It has not been submitted on behalf of the appellant that any material evidence has been left out from consideration by the appellate court below before recording the findings rather by placing the evidence in detail the effort has been made to persuade this court to reappreciate the same. Reappraisal of evidence is not ordinarily permissible in an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless the findings of the court below are shown to be perverse or not supported by the evidence on record. The first appellate court below is fully justified in taking another and different view than that of the trial court on the same set of evidence and recording a finding of fact thereupon which will be normally binding upon the High Court in second appeal. The possibility of a second view on the reappreciation of evidence cannot be a substantial question of law. As such there is no scope for 5 interference in the impugned judgment. In above view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises of consideration in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Nitesh (V.Nath, J.)