IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.198 of 2006 Smt. Urmila Devi wife of Jagdish Prasad, residing at Chatradhari Bajar, Pargana Manjhi, P.S. Bhagwan Bajar, District –Saran ………..Defendant-Appellant-Appellant. V e r s u s Surendra Chaurasiya son of Shri Parsuramjee, at Sheo Bajar, P.S. Bhagwan Bajar, District – Saran. ………….Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent For the appellant : Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, Advocate. For the respondent : None. ----------- 06/ 10.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the sole defendant-appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.162 of 1998, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for specific performance of contract vide registered deed of agreement for sale dated 16.05.1996 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit premises for consideration of Rs.17,000.00 out of which Rs.12,000.00 was paid at the time of the agreement for sale and was incorporated in the deed of agreement for sale and the remaining amount of Rs.5,000.00 was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. 4. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Munsif-I, Chapra vide judgment and decree dated 16.07.2003. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the sole defendant filed Title Appeal No.44 of 2003, which was dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Additional 2 District Judge-IX, Saran at Chapra vide his judgment and decree dated 26.06.2006.The aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. Both the learned courts below considered the points raised before them by the respective parties and after considering their pleadings and evidence came to the specific conclusion that admittedly the aforesaid registered agreement for sale was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. It was also found that the evidence of the parties were oath against oath, whereas agreement for sale was an admitted agreement which after full consideration the learned courts below found to have been executed after receiving advance money and being ready to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for the said consideration amount fixed. 6. It was also found by the courts that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but the sale deed was not executed even after expiry of the prescribed period. The point has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the contents and stipulation of the agreement were not considered by the learned courts below, but that submission is absolutely frivolous, as from the judgments and decree of the learned courts below it is quite apparent that the learned courts below had considered the deed in question, which was admittedly a document for agreement for sale with a few ifs and buts, which cannot legally alter the nature of the document. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court finds that this second appeal is absolutely frivolous and no illegality is found in the 3 impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, nor any substantial question of law is 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.)