Short Note : 1. This second appeal is by the legal representatives of defendant No 1 Ghewarmal who died during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court. The plaintiffs are real brothers. Similarly. defendant No. 2 Amarchand and defendant No.3 Dulichand are also brothers. The plaintiffs have brought the suit claiming the relief of specific performance of an agreement to sell 51.40 acres of land made by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, they have paid the entire consideration of Rs. 7,OOO/- within the stipulated time to the defendants 2 and 3 who had also delivered possession to the plaintiffs of these lands on 17-7-1962 when the agreement was initially made, but according to them, the defendants 2 and 3. instead of executing the sale-deed in their favour, executed a sale-deed on 18-5-1965 in favour of defendant No.1 Ghewarmal purporting to sell the same lands. It is also alleged that the defendant No.1 got this sale-deed executed in his favour with full knowledge of the prior agreement made by defendants 2 and 3 in plaintiffs' favour as also of the fact that the plaintiffs were in actual possession of these lands ever since 17-7-1962 2. Held: The only questions arising in this appeal are possession over the suit land and notice to defendant No.1 of the prior agreement in favour or' the plaintiffs. Both these questions are of facts and the findings thereon are ordinarily not assailable in the second appeal. No infirmity therein to permit inference in the second appeal with the findings of fact has been shown to me. Shri Tiwari learned counsel for the appellants has, however, taken me through the material present on record and, in my opinion, the conclusion reached by the Court below on these points is fully justified. The reasons given by the first appellate Court for reaching those conclusions are also cogent. On the basis of evidence present including the admission of defendant No.1 Ghewarmal himself, it has been clearly found as a fact that latest on 16-5-1965, defendant No. 1 Ghewarmal knew the fact that plaintiffs were in actual possession of these lands and that their possession was under the aforesaid agreement made in their favour by defendants 2 and, 3. The sale• deed (Ex D-l) was executed by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of, defendant No.1 only thereafter on 18-5-1965. The sale• deed (Ex D-l) was executed by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of, defendant No.1 only thereafter on 18-5-1965. On this conclusion alone, it is obvious that the defendant No.1 cannot succeed and the plaintiffs' suit was rightly decreed It is not necessary to reiterate the other reasons given by the Court below. Appeal dismissed.