JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Sri K.K.S. Chauhan and Sri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, for the appellants and Shri Ajai Bhanot for the respondents. This defendant’s second appeal arises out of a decree for specific performance of contract for sale of plots given at the foot of the plaint in pursuance of an agreement executed by defendant No. 1 Smt. Vishuna Devi in favour of plaintiff on 24.6.1968. registered on 6.11.1968. The original suit No. 302 of 1969 was decreed by Munsif of Shikohabad on 24.3.1976. The appeal arising thereof was dismissed by the District Judge, Mainpuri on 12.1.1978. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the questions framed at the time of admission of the appeal to be the substantial question of law : “The substantial question of law involved in this case are as to what is the effect of the consolidation proceedings on the agreement to sell and the plaintiff’s right to sue in view of the fact that the agreement itself provided that the sale-deed will be executed within a year of the de-notification of the village under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and lastly whether defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the agreement? “ 3. After execution of the agreement dated 24.6.1968 for sale consideration of Rs. 3300/- out of which Rs. 1200/- was paid as earnest money, the defendant No. 1 sold the property by sale deed dated 16.9.1968 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The written statement was amended on payment of costs, alleging that the land in suit has undergone complete change through consolidation proceedings and that as the land in suit does not exist in its original condition, the plaintiff is not entitled the relief of Specific Performance of Contract. 4. The appellate Court found that land in suit has been described with reference to former plot number in the agreement of sale (Ex.1) decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The agreement of sale (Ex.A-2) is said to have been executed in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, and the sale deed was executed on 16.9.68. During the consolidation proceedings, the land in suit was consolidated in plot No. 4521. There was nothing on record to show that the land in suit had ceased to exist. The agreement of sale (Ex.A-2) is said to have been executed in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, and the sale deed was executed on 16.9.68. During the consolidation proceedings, the land in suit was consolidated in plot No. 4521. There was nothing on record to show that the land in suit had ceased to exist. All that was done was to land consolidate it into a new chak with the same area. 5. The appellate Court further held that defendant No. 1 was a close relation of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, who having agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff, wanted to nullify the agreement dated 24.6.68 and hence the agreement (Ex.A-2) dated 10.11.67 was fabricated. There is no positive evidence to prove collusion or fabrication. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 should have examined, the best possible evidence in support of their version. They could atleast have examined Shri Natthu Singh the witness to prove the oral agreement of sale. It was found that the evidence adduced by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 was highly unsatisfactory. It was also found that the plaintiff a military personnel was posted in Bangalore. He belonged to different village. He had no concern with the defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are first cousins of husband of defendant No. 1 and they all lived in Nagla Bawanbari. 6. On these findings of fact I do not find that the substantial question of law, as framed arises for consideration. The submissions of learned Counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff did not have cause of action to file the suit until the consolidation proceedings were over, is belied from the fact that the defendant No. 1 himself had executed the sale deed in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 before close of consolidation proceedings. Further there is clear finding that same land was allotted with different chak number. 7. There is no other ground taken and pressed for interference with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below. The second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, with costs. Appeal Dismissed. ———