Judgment 1. This is a regular second appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 4-10-1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, reversing that of Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Sultanpur Lodhi, dated 1-10-1993, whereby the latter had dismissed the respondent-plaintiff Bawa Singhs suit for possession of land measuring 57 Kanals 6 Marlas as detailed in the heading of the plaint. 2. This regular second appeal has arisen in the following circumstances :- Bawa Singh, plaintiff (respondent-herein) filed suit for possession of land measuring 57 kanals 6 marlas as detailed in the heading of the plaint against Surjan Singh (dead/represented through his legal representatives Chaman Kaur etc.) and Smt. Balwinder Kaur wife of Malkiat Singh through specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991 executed by Surjan Singh whereby he had agreed to sell land measuring 57 kanals 6 marlas for a sum of Rs. 2,50,689.00 minus Rs. 2,05,000.00 paid as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement to sell, in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 2,50,689.00 i.e. Rs. 2,05,000.00 paid as earnest money plus Rs. 45,689.00 as damages arising out of breach of the agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991, as a consequential, relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from allocating the suit land to anybody else than him (plaintiff) and also that the defendants be restrained from taking forcible possession of the land. It is alleged in the plaint that vide agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991, Surjan Singh defendant agreed to sell the suit land measuring 57 kanals 6 marlas as detailed in the heading of the plaint to him at the rate of Rs. 35,000.00 per kila. Surjan Singh received Rs. 2,05,000.00 as earnest money at the time of agreement to sell. Out of land measuring 57 kanals 6 marlas which was agreed to be sold, land measuring 30 kanals 14 marlas is situated in village Amarjitpur and the remaining land measuring 26 kanals 12 marlas is situated in village Gill, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, Possession was given to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. The sale deed was to be executed and got registered on or before 30-4-1992 on receipt of the remaining sum of Rs. 45,689.00, (Rupees 2,05,000/- having already been paid to Surjan Singh as earnest money at the time of agreement to sell). The sale deed was to be executed and got registered on or before 30-4-1992 on receipt of the remaining sum of Rs. 45,689.00, (Rupees 2,05,000/- having already been paid to Surjan Singh as earnest money at the time of agreement to sell). It was stipulated in the agreement that in case the plaintiff ran away from performing his part of the agreement, the earnest money paid by him would stand forfeited and the agreement would stand cancelled. In case, Surjan Singh ran away from performing is part of the agreement, he (plaintiff) as entitled to enforce the said agreement through Court and get decree for specific performance. He was also made entitled to get back the earnest money as also damages to an amount equal to the amount of the earnest money. In violation of the terms of the agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991, Surjan Singh sold his entire suit land to Smt. Balwander Kaur on 18-10-1991 and 4-11-1991 through two sale deeds. It is alleged in the plaint that these sale deeds are not binding upon him as these were executed by Surjan Singh in favour of Smt. Balwinder Kaur in breach of the earlier agreement to sell dated 80-6-1991. When he (plaintiff) came to know about the execution of the sale deed dated 18-10-1991 and 4-11-1991 by Surjan Singh in favour of Smt. Balwinder Kaur, he issued written notice dated 4-4-1992 through his counsel under certificate of posting, calling upon Surjan Singh and Smt. Balwinder Kaur to execute and get registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as per terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991. The defendants did not reply. The defendants were called upon to be present in the Tehsil Complex on 20-4-1992 for executing and registering the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff but in Jain. It is further alleged in the plaint that on 20-4-1992, he went to the Office of the Sub Registrar and remained present there from morning till evening, waited for the defendants the whole day long but they did not turn up. In the evening, he swore an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi, in token of his presence in the office of the Sub Registrar throughout the day on 20-4-1992. In the evening, he swore an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi, in token of his presence in the office of the Sub Registrar throughout the day on 20-4-1992. 3 Surjan Singh contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that he never executed the agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991 which is being set up by the plaintiff. He had not received any earnest money, much less Rs. 2,05,000.00. It is a fabricated document prepared by the plaintiff in collusion with the scribe and the attesting witnesses. In fact, he (Surjan Singh) had already executed an agreement to sell dated 19-4-1991 in favour of his daughter Smt. Balwinder Kaur and pursuant to that agreement, he executed in her favour sale deed dated 18-10-1991 qua 76 kanals 12 marlas situated in village Gill along with engine and electric motor and all rights appurtenant thereto for a consideration of Rs. 1,29,000.00 and another sale deed dated 4-11-1991 regarding land measuring 80 kanals 14 marlas situated in village Amarjitpur, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi along with 3 H.P. electric motor and all rights appurtenant thereto for a consideration of Rs. 1,60,000.00 in her favour. Smt. Balwinder Kaur is in possession of the land measuring 57 kanals 6 marlas since then as owner. 4. Bawa Singh plaintiff is his (Surjan Singh) son-in-law and he is aware of the true state of affairs. After the execution of the aforesaid sale deeds by him, Bawa Singh fabricated an agreement and ante-dated it with a view to defeating the said sale deeds executed by him in favour of Smt. Balwinder Kaur. It was denied that he sold land in favour of Balwinder Kaur in violation of any agreement in favour of the plaintiff. In fact, he never executed any agreement in favour of the plaintiff dated 30-6-1991. 5. Smt. Balwinder Kaur defendant No. 2, contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991 which the plaintiff is setting up, is false, forged and fabricated. It was never executed by Surjan Singh in favour of Bawa Singh, Surjan Singh never received any earnest money from Bawa Singh in pursuance of the alleged agreement. It was urged that Surjan Singh sold land measuring 26 Kanals 12 marlas situated in village Gill to her for a sum of Rs. 1,29,000.00 vide sale deed dated 18-10-1991. It was never executed by Surjan Singh in favour of Bawa Singh, Surjan Singh never received any earnest money from Bawa Singh in pursuance of the alleged agreement. It was urged that Surjan Singh sold land measuring 26 Kanals 12 marlas situated in village Gill to her for a sum of Rs. 1,29,000.00 vide sale deed dated 18-10-1991. Similarly, he sold land measuring 30 kanals 14 marlas situated in the area of village Amarjitpur vide sale deed dated 4-11-1991 or a sum of Rupees 1,60,000/-. Since then she is in possession of land measuring 57 kanals 6 marlas. She is a bona fide purchaser for consideration without notice of the agreement to sell which the plaintiff says had been executed in his favour by Surjan Singh. It was urged that she (Balwinder Kaur) is the daughter of Surjan Singh. Another daughter of Surjan Singh is married to Bawa Singh. He is thus son-in-law of Surjan Singh. Surjan Singh is sonless. Surjan Singh brought her (Balwinder Kaur) and her husband to village Amarjitpur. She and her husband had been assisting Surjan Singh in the cultivation of his land and serving him and looking after him. He (Surjan Singh) executed an agreement to sell his entire land in her favour vide agreement to sell dated 19-4-1991. In pursuance to the agreement to sell dated 19-4-1991, Surjan Singh sold the suit land measuring 57 kanals 6 marlas to her vide two sale deeds for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1,29,000.00 and Rupees 1,60,000/-. It was further urged that she is in possession of the suit land since the day of purchase of this land by her. Prior to her, Surjan Singh was in possession. The plaintiff fabricated the agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991 after he came to know of these sales in her favour pursuant to agreement dated 19-4-1991. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :- 1. Whether deft. No. 1 agreed to sell the suit land to plaintiff and executed agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991 @ Rs. 35,000.00 per killa and received Rs. 2,05,000.00 as earnest money, ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has been and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 30-6-1991? OPP 4. 35,000.00 per killa and received Rs. 2,05,000.00 as earnest money, ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has been and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 30-6-1991? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 2,50,689.00 out of which Rs. 2,05,000/- is earnest money and Rs. 45,689.00 is damages? OPP 5. Whether the alleged agreement dated 30-6-1991, is vague and ambiguous? OPD 6. Whether defendant No. 2 is bona fide purchaser for consideration and without notice of the suit land? If so, its effect? OPD 7. Relief. 7. Vide order dated 1-10-1993, Additional Senior Sub Judge, Sultanpur Lodhi dismissed the plaintiffs suit in view of his finding that Surjan Singh did not execute agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991 in favour of Bawa Singh and that agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991 is vague and fabricated. It was found that Bawa Singh never paid any earnest money muchless Rs. 2,05,000.00 to Surjan Singh at the time of the execution of the so-called agreement. It was also found that Smt. Balwinder Kaur defendant had failed to prove the agreement to sell dated 19-4-1991 in her favour executed by Surjan Singh. Sale deeds, Exs. D1 and D2 were found to be without consideration. Fact that the sale deeds Exs. D1 and D2 are without consideration is of no concern so far as Bawa Singh is concerned as it is between Smt. Balwinder Kaur and Surjan Singh whether any consideration did or did not pass to Surjan Singh by her. 8. Plaintiff, Bawa Singh, went in appeal which was allowed by learned District Judge, Kapurthala, vide order dated 4-10-1999. Vide the aforesaid order plaintiffs suit for possession through specific performance, in pursuance of the agreement dated 30-6-1991 on payment of Rs. 2,50,689.00 minus Rs. 2,05,000.00 already paid as earnest money was decreed with costs qua land measuring 57 kanals 6 marlas in favour of Bawa Singh in view of his finding that agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991 was genuine. It was genuinely executed by Surjan Singh in favour of Bawa Singh qua land measuring 57 kanals 6 marlas and Surjan Singh had received Rs. 2,05.000.00 as earnest money. It was genuinely executed by Surjan Singh in favour of Bawa Singh qua land measuring 57 kanals 6 marlas and Surjan Singh had received Rs. 2,05.000.00 as earnest money. It was further found that Surjan Singh never executed the agreement to sell dated 19-4-1991 in favour of Smt. Balwinder Kaur. It was further found that the sale deeds Exhibits D1 and D2 executed by Surjan Singh in favour of Smt. Balwinder Kaur dated 18-10-1991 and 4-11-1991 are without consideration. Smt. Balwinder Kaur never paid any money to her father Surjan Singh, pursuant to these sale deeds. She is thus not a bona fide purchaser of the land for consideration. 9. Not satisfied with the judgment and decree dated 4-10-1999 of learned District Judge, Kapurthala, reversing that of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Sultanpur Lodhi, dated 1-10-1933, Smt. Balwinder Kaur has come up in regular second appeal to this Court. She has prayed for setting aside of the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge and the restoration of the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Sultanpur Lodhi. In consequence, she has prayed for the dismissal of the suit of Bawa Singh. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 11. In this regular second appeal, the following questions of law arise which by no means are substantial and are arising frequently in RSAs. 1) Whether finding of fact arrived at by the District Judge without any tangible evidence to sustain it rather no evidence to sustain it is binding on the High Court in second appeal? 2) Of the two handwriting and document experts, whether the Court can rely upon the opinion of that handwriting and documents expert whose opinion is more authentic and supported by reasons and not that the opinion of one expert neutralises the opinion of the other leaving the evidentiary field high and dry? 12. It would bear repetition that Surjan Singh is sonless. He has two daughters, named Smt. Balwinder Kaur and the other one who is Bawa Singhs wife. Surjan Singh was the owner of this land. For laying claim to this land, Bawa Singh and Smt. Balwinder Kaur are pitted against each other. 12. It would bear repetition that Surjan Singh is sonless. He has two daughters, named Smt. Balwinder Kaur and the other one who is Bawa Singhs wife. Surjan Singh was the owner of this land. For laying claim to this land, Bawa Singh and Smt. Balwinder Kaur are pitted against each other. Bawa Singhs contention is that Surjan Singh had executed an agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991 Exhibit P1 in his favour whereby he had agreed to sell the land measuring 57 Kanals 6 Marlas belonging to him at the rate of Rs. 35,000.00 per kila. His contention is that he paid Rs. 2,05,000.00 to Surjan Singh as earnest money who undertook to execute the sale deed in his favour and get it registered on or before 20-4-1992 on receipt of the remaining sale consideration. The agreement to sell Exhibit P1 was scribed by Kapur Singh, "Vasika Nawis" Kapurthala. It was attested by Jand Singh and Balkar Singh. Now, the question that arises in this case is whether the agreement was genuinely executed by Surjan Singh in favour of Bawa Singh on 30-6-1991 and further whether he had received earnest money of Rupees 2,05,000/- at the time of its execution from Bawa Singh. On this issue, Jand Singh, PW. 2 stated that he is the attesting witness to the agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991 Exhibit P1. This agreement was executed by Surjan Singh in favour of Bawa Singh Qua about 7 kilas of land at the rate of Rs. 35,000.00 per kila. He stated that this agreement was scribed by Kapur Singh "Vasika Nawis" and Rs. 2,05,000.00 was paid as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed about three months after the date of the agreement, Balkar Singh was the other attesting witness of this agreement. He further stated that this agreement was scribed at village Tibba. They did not go to Sultanpur Lodhi as 30-6-1991 was 9 holiday. To the same effect are the statements of Bawa Singh, Kapur Singh and Balkar Singh, Sardara Singh PW. 5 compared the disputed signatures of Surjan Singh in "Urdu script" marked Q-1 on the face of first page of the agreement, Q-2 on the second page of the agreement dated 30-6-1991 with his admitted signatures S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 and S9 on sale deed dated 18-10-1991 and Q-3 at Sr. 5 compared the disputed signatures of Surjan Singh in "Urdu script" marked Q-1 on the face of first page of the agreement, Q-2 on the second page of the agreement dated 30-6-1991 with his admitted signatures S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 and S9 on sale deed dated 18-10-1991 and Q-3 at Sr. No. 34 of the register of Kapur Singh, Vasika Nawis and A, A1 and A2 on the register of Sub Registrar and stated that these signatures are of one and the same person. He compared these signatures Q1 etc. with the standing signatures of Surjan Singh mark A-2 on the front and A and A-1 on the overleaf of the register of the Sub Registrar, Sultanpur Lodhi at page No. 21 and stated that these signatures tally. DW 6 Arvind Sood. Handwriting and Documents Expert, on the other hand, stated that the purported signatures of Surjan Singh did not tally with his admitted/standard signatures on the sale deed Exhibit D1 and the signatures appended by him in the office of the Sub Registrar. He has given cogent reasons for his opinion that the purported signatures of Surjan Singh on agreement to sell dated 30-4-1991 do not tally with his admitted signatures on the sale deed Exhibit D.1. Merely because he is not literate in Urdu language, does not go to suggest that he cannot compare Urdu alphabets. He has stated in his report that the questioned signatures Q-1 to Q-3 have been made with the help of findger movement as the edges of the various strokes are irregular, the strokes are laboured and are giving clumsy appearance. The beginnings and endings of various strokes are of blunt nature and the various strokes are joined with unnecessary pen lifts and careful joinings and there is also tremor of hesitation present in most be the strokes of questioned signatures Q-1 to Q-3. These features also give a strong indication of free hand forgery but the standard signatures S-1 to S-6 have been made with hand movement were the wrist has been used as main pivot of action as the various strokes are freely made with smoother and regular edges with tapering ends and most of the combination of strokes are made in single pen operations. The line quality of the various strokes is of poor nature in A-1 to Q-3 as edges of various strokes are irregular with presence of tremor of hestitation and the line quality is defective due to presence of unnecessary pen lefts, careful joinings and retouchings, which are features of free hand copied forgery. 13. In my opinion, Shri Arvind Sood has given cogent reasons for his opinion that the disputed signatures of Surjan Singh do not tally with his admitted signatures. Shri Arvind Sood is M.Sc, in forensic Science from Punjabi University, Patiala. He gained experience from Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jammu and Srinagar and State Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra. He has stated so far he has appeared as a Expert witness in various Courts of law in Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh in more than 1400 cases. On the other hand, Shri Sardara Singh Parmar, Documents Expert, Phillar, has no such qualifications. He retired as Inspector, Police, Documents Expert, Philler. He stated that there are natural variations in the standard signatures when compared inter se. He however stated that these natural variations are not mentioned in his report regarding standard signatures. He stated that he had measured spacing between the letter and words in the disputed as well as in the standard signatures but the measurement has not been mentioned by him in his report. He measured the width and length of the letters in disputed as well as the standard signatures but did not mention this in his report. He deposed that "Nukta" on the upper portion of Noon is in the shape of coma in standard signatures at Mark D while the same is shown as point in disputed signatures in Q1 and Q2. He had not noted any dissimilarity in the standard of the letters. 14. The reasons given by Sardara Singh Parmar, Documents Expert, PW 5, in support of his opinion are not cogent. Even otherwise, why should Surjan Singh have executed agreement to sell his land in favour of Bawa Singh when Smt. Balwinder Kaur and her family were putting up with him at village Amarjitpur, Smt. Balwinder Kaur DW 1 stated that she is married to Malkiat Singh of village Jokopur and they are two sisters. They do not have any brother. Even otherwise, why should Surjan Singh have executed agreement to sell his land in favour of Bawa Singh when Smt. Balwinder Kaur and her family were putting up with him at village Amarjitpur, Smt. Balwinder Kaur DW 1 stated that she is married to Malkiat Singh of village Jokopur and they are two sisters. They do not have any brother. She, her husband and children are putting up with her father at village Amarjitpur. Her father is an agriculturist, owning land in villages Gill and Amarjitpur. Her father did not execute any agreement to sell in favour of Bawa Singh dated 30-6-1991. He sold land of both the villages to her vide sale seeds Exhibits D1 and D2, pursuant to agreement to sell dated 19-4-1991 in her favour. She has, however, not brought the original agreement to sell on the records of this case. She has brought on record only photo copy thereof. She did not make any application for permission to her to lead secondary evidence of that agreement to sell dated 19-4-1991. Without the permission of the Court to lead secondary evidence of the agreement to sell dated 19-4-1991, she could not have led any evidence to prove photo copy thereof. It was thus justifiably found by both the Courts below that Smt. Balwinder Kaur has failed to prove the execution of agreement in her favour by her father Surjan Singh whereby he had agreed to sell his land at the rate of Rs. 41,000/38,000.00 per killa. So far as Bawa Singh is concerned, he has not been able to prove that agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991 was executed in his favour by Surjan Singh Qua 57 kanals 6 Marlas of land. The agreement, Exhibit P1 does not bear the signatures of Surjan Singh. As per Shri Arvind Sood, Documents Expert, it is a piece of forgery. The purported signatures of Surjan Singh on agreement Exhibit P1 present certain features which give a clear cut picture of free hand copied forgery. Bawa Singh has not proved any payment of Rs. 2,05,000.00 to Surjan Singh at the time of agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991. He has stated that out of the amount of Rs. 2,05,000.00, some amount was lying at his house and some amount he arranged from relations and friends. He was required strictly to prove the payment of Rs. 2,05,000.00 as earnest money to Surjan Singh. 2,05,000.00 to Surjan Singh at the time of agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991. He has stated that out of the amount of Rs. 2,05,000.00, some amount was lying at his house and some amount he arranged from relations and friends. He was required strictly to prove the payment of Rs. 2,05,000.00 as earnest money to Surjan Singh. The agreement Exhibit P1 could have been scribed at Sultanpur Lodhi. If it had happened to be Sunday on 30-6-1991, it could have been scribed on 1-7-1991 at Sultanpur Lodhi where there are a number of professional scribes. The agreement Exhibit P1 could have been witnessed by someone from village Amarjitpur or village Gill whereas it is witnessed by Jand Singh of village Dallan and one Balkar Singh of village Mahabalipur. The register of "Vasika Nawis" Kapur Singh, does not appear to have been maintained regularly. It is not page marked. It was not attested by any Sub Registrar, neither when he commenced making entries in this register nor when he stopped making entries in this register. This register does not appear to have been bound close knit. The pages can be taken out and inserted in this register. How could Surjan Singh execute any agreement to sell in favour of Bawa Singh when he was putting up with Smt. Balwinder Kaur? He had executed Mukhtarnama Khas in favour of Balwinder Kaurs husband Malkiat Singh authorising him to conduct this case on his behalf. Mukhtarnama Khas was scribed by Partap Singh, Vasika Nawis, Sultanpur Ladhi. Assuming that Bawa Singh had paid him the earnest money of Rs. 2,05,000.00 question arises where has that money evaporated/ If he had paid to Surjan Singh this amount, he would have deposited this amount in some bank or invested it somewhere. It appears that there was a tug of war going on between Bawa Singh on the one hand and Smt. Balwinder Kaur, on the other, so far as this land is concerned. Surjan Singh was putting up with Smt. Balwinder Kaur and her family. Surjan Singh wanted to benefit her. Bawa Singh forged this agreement Exhibit P1. In my opinion, the finding of the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Sultanpur Lodhi that agreement Exhibit P1 dated 30-6-1991 is false and forged and it was never executed by Surjan Singh in favour of Bawa Singh is correct. Surjan Singh wanted to benefit her. Bawa Singh forged this agreement Exhibit P1. In my opinion, the finding of the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Sultanpur Lodhi that agreement Exhibit P1 dated 30-6-1991 is false and forged and it was never executed by Surjan Singh in favour of Bawa Singh is correct. The finding of the learned District Judge to the contrary is erroneous and is not based on any evidence much less there is no evidence to sustain it. It is based on highly misappreciation of evidence. Finding of fact arrived at, not based upon evidence, is not binding on this Court sitting in second appeal and it can be ignored by this Court. Surjan Singh could well appear before the Court and state whatever he wanted to. He visited Sultanpur Lodhi on 14-8-1993 and gave power of attorney to Malkiat Singh, husband of Smt. Balwinder Kaur. In my opinion, no inference can be drawn if Surjan Singh did not appear into the witness box and state about his position qua agreement to sell Exhibit P1. Surjan Singh was pitted against Smt. Balwinder Kaur who is his daughter and Bawa Singh, who is husband of his another daughter. It appears that he left it to the Court to decide whatever way it decided. It appears that he avoided taking sides. 15. Sale deeds Exhibits D1 and D2 may or may not have been without consideration. This could be challenged by Surjan Singh when he was alive. In his written statement, he had stated that he had executed these sale deeds for valid consideration. That means, he did not mean to challenge these sale deeds on the ground that they are without consideration. Even otherwise, the plaintiff could succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendants case. If defendant Balwinder Kaur is not able to show that she is a bona fide purchaser for consideration, without notice of agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991 in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff could enforce agreement Exhibit P1 and claim its specific performance only on proving that it was genuinely executed by Surjan Singh in his favour and further it was for consideration and that he had really paid Rs. 2,05,000.00 to Surjan Singh as earnest money. 2,05,000.00 to Surjan Singh as earnest money. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that sitting in second appeal, this Court cannot reverse the finding of fact arrived at by the learned District Judge, which is based on reasonable and correct appreciation of facts. It was submitted that the High Court can interfere in second appeal but only on substantial question of law and not otherwise. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam V/s. Savitribai Sopan Gujar (1999) 3 SCC 722 , it was held that the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the first appellate Court unless it finds that the conclusions drawn by the lower Court were erroneous being (1) contrary to the mandatory provisions of applicable law; or (2) contrary to the law as pronounced by the Apex Court; or (3) based upon inadmissible evidence or no evidence. There can be no quarrel so far as this principle of law enunciated by the Hon ble Supreme Court is concerned. In this case, it must be stated even at the cost of repetition, that the finding of the learned District Judge is based on no evidence. The learned District Judge has arrived at findings which are based on gross misappreciation of evidence. Duty of the Court is to do justice. Courts of law cannot perpetuate injustice. If injustice is perpetrated, there will be erosion of faith of the people to far as judicial system is concerned. 16. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that this appeal should succeed and is accordingly allowed. In consequence, the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Kapurthala, are set aside and those passed by Additional Senior Sub Judge, Sultanpur Lodhi are restored. Resultantly, the respondents suit is dismissed. No costs. Appeal allowed.