Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below whereby it was found that, the agreement to sell dated 12.7.1994, Exhibit P-1 was executed by the defendant and consequently granted a decree for specific performance of the said agreement. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the said: agreement was witnessed by Piru Ram and Jai Bhagwan. Piru Ram has not been examined by the plaintiff, whereas Jai Bhagwan was examined by the defendant as DW-3. 3. The Courts below have returned a finding of fact that agreement to sell is proved to be executed on the basis of thumb impression of Piru Ram on the agreement after comparison in the thumb impression in the previous, litigation. The Courts below have also taken into consideration the statement of PW 1 Anand Parkash who is scribe of the said document. 4. It has been found by the learned trial court that when the defendant was called upon to give the specimen signatures in the Court on a specimen sheet, he gave 5 specimen signatures, but all differently and on comparison of alt these five signatures inter se, they do not compare in a consistent manner which shows an attempt was made by the defendant to Create confusion so as to his signatures do not happen to tally with the signatures on the agreement to sell dated 12.7.1994 and in the register of the Notary Public Ex. P.2. 5. The defendant who has given different specific signatures before the Court cannot be said to be a reliable Witness so as to warrant any interference in the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below that such agreement as not executed by the defendant. Both the Courts have give concurrent finding bf fact on the basis of appreciation of evidence that agreement to sell stands executed. 6. The findings have been recorded by the Courts below1 tin the basis of appreciation of evidence which can not be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity so as to raise any substantial question of law in the second appeal for consideration of this Court. Dismissed in limine.