1 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.91/2010 Jagdish Chandra vs LRs of Late Gurdayal Singh & Ors. Date of Order: 5.5.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Sandeep Shah, for the appellant. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgments and decrees of the trial court dated 28.2.2004 and appellate court dated 21.5.2009. The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs and that decree has been upheld by the appellate court, hence, this second appeal. As per the facts as alleged in the plaint, defendant Chanan Ram entered into agreement to sale the agricultural land and in pursuance of the part performance of the contract handed over the land in question to the vendee. The suit was contested by the defendant Chahan Ram and it appears that his son Pramod Kumar – the present appellant obtained a partition decree for the same land. According to learned counsel for the appellant since the land was ancestral, therefore, it could not have been sold by Chanan Ram and appellants have their share in the property and, therefore, the judgments and decrees are 2 illegal. It is submitted that defendant Chahan Ram was in habit of taking liquor and when he was in intoxication stage, then this agreement was got executed. The plea raised by the appellant was only a issue of fact which has been decided by the two courts below and for this there is no substantial question raised by the appellant. So far as obtaining the partition decree by the two of the sons of the defendant is concerned, it is not relevant for the purpose of passing of decree for specific performance of contract in view of the settled position that the purchasers get what the vender had with him in case suit is decreed. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. [PRAKASH TATIA],J. cpgoyal/-