JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - This is plaintiffs Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, whereby after reversing the finding of the trial court on issue No.3, suit of the plaintiff for recovery of the sale consideration with interest from defendant No.1 has been dismissed. 2. In the present case, the appellant was owner of the plot measuring 200 square yards. On 12.2.1996, he had entered into an agreement to sell the said plot in favour of defendant No.1 for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- were received as earnest money. The appellant executed general power of attorney dated 18.6.1997 in favour of defendant’ No. 1, who subsequently executed the registered sale deed dated. 26.2.2000 with regard to the plot in question in favour of defendant No.2. Thereafter, in January, 2001, the plaintiff filed the instant suit challenging the said sale deed being illegal, null and void and based on fraud and mis-representation. It was alleged that value of the suit property was more than 2,50,000/- and it was wrongly sold by defendant No.1 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and even the said amount has not been paid by him to the plaintiff. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendant No.1 took the stand that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the suit land to him on 12.2.1996 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/and he had received Rs.50,000/­ as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed and registered by 11.2.1997. But the sale deed could not be executed by the said date. However, defendant No.1 paid the remaining consideration to the plaintiff and in turn, he had executed the general power of attorney in his favour and handed over possession of the suit land. It is alleged that on the basis of the said general power of attorney, defendant No.1 has sold the suit property to defendant No.2 for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. 4. The trial court, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, as received by him from defendant No.2 as sale consideration, after deducting the expenses incurred by him in execution of the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. The trial court, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, as received by him from defendant No.2 as sale consideration, after deducting the expenses incurred by him in execution of the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. Regarding the other claim of the plaintiff that the sale deed dated 26.2.2000 was illegal, null and void and the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property, his suit was dismissed and it was held that the sale deed was validly executed by defendant No.1 on the basis of general power of attorney executed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. 5. Against the said judgment and decree, only defendant No.1 filed appeal. The plaintiff did not file any cross-objection regarding the finding recorded against him on other issues. Before the first appellate court, the plaintiff contested the appeal only on issue No.3, under which defendant No.1 was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiff after deducting the expenses incurred in the execution of sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. Before the trial court, defendant No.1 took the plea that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the suit property to him for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- vide agreement dated 12.2.1996 (Ex.D1) and he had received Rs.50,000/- as earnest amount. Subsequently on 18.6,1997, after receiving the entire sale consideration, possession of the suit property was delivered to defendant No.1 and instead of executing the sale deed, general power of attorney was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1, on the basis of which he executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. The trial court rejected the plea of defendant No.1 on the ground that he has failed to prove the agreement dated 12.2.1996. The first appellate court has reversed the said finding, while recording the following findings :­ “After going through the file, I find that the trial Court erred in holding that the agreement Ex.D1 is not proved and thereby de-exhibited the same. Agreement Ex.D1 was proved by Joginder Pal, attesting witness, who appeared as DW2 and stated on oath that agreement was executed for Rs.1,50,000/- in his presence. Agreement Ex.D1 was proved by Joginder Pal, attesting witness, who appeared as DW2 and stated on oath that agreement was executed for Rs.1,50,000/- in his presence. Rs.50,000/- were paid at the time of agreement and the balance was to be paid at the time of sale deed. The agreement was typed by Vijay Kumar Sharma, typist. He identified his signatures on Ex.D1. Through this agreement, Harjit Singh agreed to sell 200 sq. yards of plot to Karam Singh, defendant No.1. Plaintiff in the plaint has made no mention of this agreement and in the replication, he has denied the execution thereof. Defendant has also examined Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate, as DW.1 who stated that he had typed the agreement Ex.D1 on the asking of Harjit Singh in favour of Karam Singh and that in his presence Rs.50,000/­ were paid. The witnesses were not present at the spot and they came after 5/10 minutes. He does not remember the names of the witnesses. Rs.50,000/- were paid after the arrival of the witnesses. The writing is Ex.D1. Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate’ was put to the searching cross-examination wherein he admitted that his signatures do not appear on the agreement nor he entered the same in any record. An Advocate is not required to enter the document written by him in any record. However, there is no motive on the part of Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate to make false statement. He has stated that he had typed the agreement himself. A comparison of the signatures of Harjit Singh plaintiff appearing ‘on the first page, second page as well as on the back of first page regarding purchase of stamp paper when compared with the signatures on the plaint shows that the signatures of Harjit Singh are similar with the said signatures and plaintiff is lying when he states that he had not signed the agreement. He had not only signed the agreement on both the pages but also signed on the bottom as well as on the back of first page regarding purchase of stamp paper from the stamp vendor. The payment of sale consideration is proved. Therefore, I hold that agreement Ex.D1 is duly proved and the findings of the trial Court in this regard are set-aside.” 6. The payment of sale consideration is proved. Therefore, I hold that agreement Ex.D1 is duly proved and the findings of the trial Court in this regard are set-aside.” 6. On the basis of agreement dated 12.2.1996 (Ex.D1), the first appellate court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the plot in dispute to defendant No.2 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ and Rs.50,000/- were received as earnest money. According to the said agreement, the sale deed was to be executed on 11.2.1997, but the general power of attorney was executed (Ex.D2) by the plaintiff on 18.6.1997 in favour of defendant No.1, which shows that the plaintiff had executed the general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1, empowering him to sell the suit property. On the basis of the said facts, the court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not shown as to under what circumstances, he executed the power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 to sell the plot in dispute. While taking into consideration all these facts, the first appellate court has come to the conclusion that while executing the general power of attorney (Ex.D2), the plaintiff has received the entire sale consideration, delivered possession of the suit property to defendant No.1 and then authorised him to execute the sale deed. Therefore, it has been held that suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiff, which he had received from defendant No.2 as sale consideration, cannot be decreed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff argued that the first appellate court has wrongly reversed the finding of the trial court. She submits that the agreement (Ex.D1) has not been proved in accordance with law. Therefore, the same could not’ have been believed. I do not find any substance in this argument. It has been proved that the said general power of attorney was executed by the plaintiff on 18.6.1997 in continuation of the agreement dated 12.2.1996 and it has not been explained as to under what circumstances, the plaintiff executed the general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1, who was not his relative. It has been proved that the said general power of attorney was executed by the plaintiff on 18.6.1997 in continuation of the agreement dated 12.2.1996 and it has not been explained as to under what circumstances, the plaintiff executed the general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1, who was not his relative. In addition to the two witnesses examined by defendant No.1 to prove the agreement Ex.D1, the first appellate court has also compared the signatures of the plaintiff on the agreement as well as the plaint and found the same to be of the same person. It has not been explained as to why possession of the plot in dispute was delivered to defendant No.1 at the time of execution of the power of attorney. It is not the case of the plaintiff that while reversing the finding of the trial court, the first appellate court has ignored any particular piece of evidence. After taking into consideration each and every evidence, available on’ the record, the first appellate court has recorded the finding that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement (Ex.D1) with defendant No.1 and after receiving the sale consideration, general power of attorney (Ex.D2) was executed authorising defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed regarding the plot in dispute. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court, which in my opinion does not require any interference by this Court in the second appeal. 8. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Dismissed. --------------------