JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the defendant. The suit for specific performance of oral agreement for sale of the suit land was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the agreement was not proved. The first appellate Court, however, reversed the judgment and decreed the suit on re-appreciation of the evidence on record. The defendants have approached this Court in second appeal, which is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the first appellate Court wrongly interpreted the documents (Ex. D-1 and D-2)?" The other facts relevant for deciding the appeal are as under: The plaintiff had already purchased a plot on which the suit house of the defendant was constructed by deceased Manku [now represented by his legal representatives, appellant Nos. 1-(A) to (E)]. Since the plaintiff had already purchased the plot on which the house-in-suit stood, the plaintiff had approached the deceased-defendant Manku for obtaining conveyance of the house in question. According to the plaintiff, the deceased-defendant Manku agreed to execute a conveyance-deed; but later resiled and under two subsequent agreements (Ex. 0-1 & 0-2) agreed to sell it to appellant No. 2-Saiyad Khan. The defendant denied the existence of any oral agreement of sale of the house in question with the plaintiff. The plea taken by the defendant is that Ex. 0-1 and 0-2 were agreements executed much prior to the alleged oral agreements said to have been entered into with the plaintiff. The first appellate Court, on due appreciation of the evidence on record, came to a finding in paragraphs 9 to 13 that the two agreements (Ex. 0-1 and 0-2) were not proved to have been executed on the dates mentioned therein and they were fabricated to defeat the plaintiff's suit for specific performance based on his prior oral agreement for sale of the house in question. There is no question involved with regard to interpretation of the written agreements (Ex. 0-1 and 0-2) set-up by the defendants to defeat the claim of the plaintiff. The sole question framed in this appeal, therefore, does not arise for decision. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant raised certain additional questions which have not been framed in this second appeal for decision. It is sought to be urged that the alleged oral agreement is incapable of specific performance because it is vague. The sole question framed in this appeal, therefore, does not arise for decision. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant raised certain additional questions which have not been framed in this second appeal for decision. It is sought to be urged that the alleged oral agreement is incapable of specific performance because it is vague. This Court cannot take up for decision the questions which have not been framed in this second appeal for decision. There is also no proper application under section 100 CPC for raising additional questions of law. In the opinion of this Court also, no such substantial question of law arises which can be framed and decided in this second appeal. The ground urged at the time of hearing of the appeal has no merit. As has been stated above, admittedly the plot on which the suit house is in existence had already been purchased by the plaintiff. The first appellate Court, therefore, believed his case that he had approached the deceased-defendant Manku and he was prepared to sell the suit-house. It is thereafter only that in order to get better price, the deceased-defendant entered into the written agreement with appellant No. 2-Saiyad Khan. The written agreements with appellant No. 2-Saiyad Khan (Ex. 0-1 & 0-2) have been rejected by the Court describing them as the documents got prepared and fabricated only to defeat the right of the plaintiff. The decision of the first appellate Court is based on due appreciation of the evidence on record. No question of law arises for up-setting the judgment of the lower appellate Court. This second appeal is without merit and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee as per schedule, if certified.