JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J. (Oral): This second appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below dismissing the suit for specific performance of contract filed by the plaintiff-appellant. 2. The judgment of the trial court is that of Shri J.L. Chauhan. Sub Judge, 1st Class, Rohru dated 06.07.1987 and that of the lower appellate Court is of Shri Mrigainder Singh, Additional District Judge (I), Shimla dated 29.10.1990. 3. The suit was filed -by the plaintiff on the pleadings that the defendant No. 1 Mushu Sadh and sant were the co-shares in respect of the suit land fully described in the plaint. In the year 1970-72, they executed different agreements showing their intentions to sell their shares in Khata/ Khatauni No. 106/1X4 min measuring 15-10 Bighas situate in Mauja Gawas, Tehsil Chirgaon. By way of these agreements the land was agreed to be sold by them to the plaintiff. They also received some consideration from the plaintiff. The regular sale deeds were not executed and the owners have since died and defendants No.2 to 10 arc their successors-in-interest. On 24.8.1984, defendant’s No. 1, 5, 6 and 10 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. l I Dharam Sen, who is represented by Shri G.D. Verma, Advocate. 4. As per the averments made in the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 Dharma Sen in the trial Court, two parcels of land comprised in Khasra No. 673 min measuring 3 bighas and 6 biswas and bighas and 18 biswas was sold to him by defendants No. l, 5, 6 and 10 being their snare, this means that out of the suit land measuring 15 bighas and 10 biswas, an area of 6 bighas and 4 biswas was sold to defendant No. l Dharam Sen. Rest of the area was still in possession of the vendors as per the agreement executed by Mushu. Sadh and Sant as aforesaid in 1970-72. 5. It is the further pleaded case of the plaintiff that he requested the defendants to execute a regular registered sale deed but they did not be -executed at the time of the execution bf the agreement because the predeces-sor-in-interest of the defendants No.2 to 10 and defendant No. l had incurred a loan from the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh and as such the land in question was mortgaged with it. of Himachal Pradesh and as such the land in question was mortgaged with it. It is also pleaded that at the time of execution of the agreement to sell the land in favour of the plaintiff, the possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff, he has challenged the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 11 on 24.8.1984 during the subsistence of the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff as a fake document and not binding on him. It has also been pleaded that at the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 11, he was having the notice of earlier sale agreements in favour of the plaintiff. Hence the suit for specific performance of the contract and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. l 1 from disturbing the possessing of the plaintiff on the suit land and by way of an amendment which was allowed by the trial Court on 23.3.1987 an alternative prayer for possession of the suit land was also made in case the defendant No. 11 was found to be in possession. 6. In the written statement filed by defendant’s No. 1 to 10, they admitted the claim of the plaintiff qua specific performance of the agreement to sell the land in favour of the plaintiff. It was stated therein that the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 11 is illegal and void and in operative and they are ready to execute the sale deed in favour of die plaintiff on the prevailing market rate. In other words, the proposed vendors admitted the claim of the plaintiff. 7. Defendant No. l in his written statement averred that he is abonafide purchaser for consideration without notice of the previous agreement, if any-.— -and after the sale deed in his favour, the possession has already been delivered to him and since then he has been coming in possession of the suit land as owner and the plaintiff has no locus stand to file the suit, which otherwise is hopelessly time berried and further mat the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit due to his acts and conduct It has further been stated that once the defendant vendors having sold their share to him, they cannot transfer the suit land to the plaintiff. . 8. . 8. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court, framed the following issues : “I. Whether the defendant No. 1 and ancestors of defendants No.2 to 10 had executed the sale agreement in favour of plaintiff, as alleged 7 OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as alleged 7 OPP 3. Whether defendant No. 11 was not in knowledge of alleged agreement (executed in favour of plaintiff) prior to the said sale deed executed in his favour? OPD 11. 4. Whether suit is time-barred, as alleged? OPD 11. 5. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPD-11. 6. Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action against defendant No. 11 as alleged? OPD. 7. Relief." 9. Issue No. 1 was answered in favour of the plaintiff while-Issue No.2 was answered against him. Issues No.3 and 4 were decided in favour of defendant No. 11.Issues No. 5 and 6 were decided against the defendants" On these findings, the suit was dismissed. The appeal of the plaintiff before the first lower appellate Court having met the same fate, has given rise to the present second appeal. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. It is manifest that both the courts have fallen into grave legal error by dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in its entirety. The admitted case as per the pleadings of the parties is that defendants No. l , 5, 6 and 10 and sold their share in. Kriasra No.673 min in two parcels to totaling 6 bighas 4 biswas to defendant No. 11 who is the contesting party in this case. It is also the admitted fact that the proposed vendors, i.e. defendants No. l to 10 in their written statement admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Without going into the merits as to whether the defendant No. l 1 was a bonafide purchaser of part of the suit land without notice, it would be appropriate to decide the case in the light of these admitted facts. Moreover, on the second aspect of the case, i.e. whether defendant No. 11 was bonafide purchaser without notice, both the Courts below found this fact in his favour and the same cannot be disturbed in the second appeal inasmuch as it is based on appreciation of evidence. 11. Moreover, on the second aspect of the case, i.e. whether defendant No. 11 was bonafide purchaser without notice, both the Courts below found this fact in his favour and the same cannot be disturbed in the second appeal inasmuch as it is based on appreciation of evidence. 11. No doubt, the plaintiff had forfeited his right to seek specific performance of contract qua the area 6 bighas 4 biswas sold to defendant No. 11, 12 years after the alleged agreement to sell in favour of said defendant computing the period from 1972, however, in all, considering from the first agreement to sell, the prior works out to more than 14 year?. Therefore, on the facts of the present case, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief qua the share sold to defendant No. l l. This court is supported in this view by the ruling reported as Narain Pillai Chandrasekharan Nair vs. Kunju Amma Thankamma (AIR 1990 Kerala 177) and Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs. Smt. Sudka Rani Debt and others (AIR 1978 S.C. 537). Moreover, as laid down in the latest ruling by the Apex Court, which has been cited at the Bar by Shri G.D.Verma, counsel for defendant No. 11 reported as Kshitish Chandra Purkait vs. Santosh Kumar Purkait and others (1997) 5 S.C.C. 438, the High Court should be satisfied that the second appeal involves a substantial question of law and not mere question of law. As regards this aspect of the case, no substantial question of law is involved, however, as regards the remaining area, i.e. 9 bighas 6 biswas which was the share of defendant No.2 Lehnoo defendant No.3 sutra defendant No.4 Smt. Lati, defendant No.7 Snit. Sawarpati, defendant No.8 Jainoo and defendant No.9 Ranu. both the Courts have fallen into error in not granting the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff. Reasons for this arc manifest on record. First, the claim of the plaintiff had been admitted by the vendors in their joint written statement and they included the above-mentioned defendants. Secondly, despite .he fact that the plaintiff was lackadaisical and tardy in filing the suit for specific performance, having waited for 14 long years and more, no intermediary right had accrued in between so as to adversely affect the interest of another 3rd party qua this area of 9 bighas 6 biswas. Secondly, despite .he fact that the plaintiff was lackadaisical and tardy in filing the suit for specific performance, having waited for 14 long years and more, no intermediary right had accrued in between so as to adversely affect the interest of another 3rd party qua this area of 9 bighas 6 biswas. There was no hitch or hurdle in granting relief to the plaintiff in view of the admitted case of the plaintiff. 12: In the circumstances of the case, equity is also in favour of the plaintiff qua the area of 9 bighas and 6 biswas only. To my mind, this involves a substantial question of law which has open wrongly decided by the courts below and needs to be rectified in second appeal. 13. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed to the extent that setting aside the judgments and decrees of the courts bellows. the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed for specific performance of contract qua 9 bighas 6 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 106/184 min situated in Mauza Gwas, Tehsil Chirgaon, which is the share of defendants No.2 to 4 and 7 to 9. His suit qua the remaining area of 6 bighas 6 biswas subsequently sold to defendant No. 11 shall however, stand dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. -