Hon'ble VYAS, J.—The appellants have filed this second appeal under Section 100, C.P.C. challenging the validity of the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2009 passed by Addl. District Judge, Sangaria in Civil Appeal No.8/2005, whereby, the learned Addl. District Judge affirmed the judgment and decree dated 25.05.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangaria in Civil Case No.75/93. 2. According to brief facts of the case, a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 21.05.1984 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff against Pratap Singh, in which, it is stated that 4 bigha of agriculture land of the plaintiff is situated in Chak 2 NKR, Khata No.14/14, Murabba 16 and his name is also entered in the revenue record. Adjoining his land, 3 bigha land situated in Murabba 15 belonging to the respondent was sold by way of agreement dated 21.05.1984 by way of executing written agreement. According to the plaintiff, he has made all his efforts to get executed the sale-deed in his favour and, for the same, he made several requests to the respondent-defendant but, till 05.05.1992, when the sale was not executed as per the agreement, then, notice was sent by him for the purpose of executing the sale-deed in his favour as per agreement dated 21.05.1984; but, no reply was given to the notice sent by the plaintiff and verbally the respondent-defendant refused to execute the sale in his favour on 15.05.1992. Thereafter, a suit for specific performance was filed by the appellant-plaintiff. 3. In the said suit eight issues were framed and statements of P.W.-1 Teja Singh plaintiff, P.W.-2 Jagdev Singh and P.W.-3 Jasbir Singh were recorded and their affidavits were filed. Plaintiff produced 12 documents to prove his case. In the defence, statements of D.W.-1 Karnail Kaur, D.W.-2 Kashi Ram and D.W.-3 Pratap Singh were recorded and their affidavits were taken on record. No documentary evidence was produced by the respondent-defendant. Thereafter, the learned trial Court proceeded to decide the suit issue-wise and after considering the entire evidence the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff Teja Singh and it was ordered that the respondent shall execute the sale-deed in pursuance of the agreement dated 21.5.1984 within a period of two months and will not create disturbance or will not interfere in the peaceful possession of the land which is in possession of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court further rejected the counter-claim filed by the respondent-defendant. 4. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-appellants before the District Judge, Hanumangarh and the same was transferred for adjudication to the Court of Addl. District Judge, Sangaria. The learned appellate Court after discussing the entire evidence dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-defendants and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Against the concurrent finding arrived by both the Courts below this appeal has been filed by the defendants whereby they are challenging the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that both the Courts below have committed error while not appreciating the evidence in right perspective and have not framed correct issues for deciding the matter. The learned Courts below have not framed any issue with regard to readiness and willingness of the appellant-defendants. Further, it is submitted that the suit was filed after expiry of eight years and this aspect of the matter was not considered properly by both the Courts below. Therefore, there is clear perversity and illegality in the adjudication made by both the Courts below. 6. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. 7. In my opinion, the appellants are not disputing the execution of the agreement, so also, the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court upon all the issues are based on cogent evidence and facts. The plaintiff-respondent has proved his case that the agreement was executed in his favour by defendant Pratap Singh and he has paid the consideration for the said land, for which, the agreement was executed. In this view of the matter, the issue-wise finding recorded by the trial Court as well as appellate Court does not require any interference because both the Courts below concurrently gave the finding on the basis of the evidence coming on record. Therefore, no substantial question of law emerges for consideration in this second appeal. 8. This second appeal is, therefore, accordingly dismissed.