JUDGMENT L. N. Mittal, J (Oral):- Makhan Singh-defendant has filed the instant second appeal, having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. 2. Harmeet Singh-plaintiff-respondent filed suit against appellant for possession of the suit land by specific performance of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant vide agreement dated 16.05.2002 agreed to sell 11 kanals 18 marlas land in suit to the plaintiff for Rs.1,85,940/- and received Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of the agreement. Sale deed was to be executed upto 31.05.2003. Defendant could not execute the sale deed till that date due to some problem. On 22.08.2003, defendant received further amount of Rs.25000/- from the plaintiff vide receipt executed on the back of the agreement and extended the date of execution of sale deed till 31.05.2004. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the defendant committed breach thereof. 3. Defendant inter alia pleaded that he never agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff nor executed any agreement nor received any amount from the plaintiff. The impugned agreement is forged and fabricated. The defendant, who is a farmer, used to sell his crop at the shop of the plaintiff, who is a Commission agent. The plaintiff might have obtained signatures or thumb impressions of the defendant on some blank stamp papers/pronotes or receipts and later on prepared the alleged agreement. 4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 11.04.2007 decreed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by the defendant stands dismissed by learned District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 07.06.2007. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. At the outset, it has to be noticed that at the time of motion hearing on 11.07.2008, it was observed that the plaintiff- Harmeet Singh appeared in the witness box on 13.12.2004 and tendered his affidavit of examination-in-chief and his cross-examination was referred and later on, cross-examination of one Sukhdev Singh instead of Harmeet Singh-plaintiff was recorded on 17.10.2006, but the said statement dated 17.10.2006 was signed by Harmeet Singh-plaintiff as maker of the statement. Consequently, the trial Court was directed to hold inquiry and to make report. Pursuant thereto, report has been received from the trial Court vide letter No.316 dated 25.07.2008. Consequently, the trial Court was directed to hold inquiry and to make report. Pursuant thereto, report has been received from the trial Court vide letter No.316 dated 25.07.2008. Statements of counsel representing both the parties in the trial Court were recorded and statements of plaintiff and also the Court Reader, who had recorded the statement on 17.10.2006, were recorded during inquiry. All of them stated that it was plaintiff Harmeet Singh, who had appeared as witness for cross-examination and his statement had been recorded on 17.10.2006 and the Reader inadvertently mentioned the name as Sukhdev Singh. This position was admitted even by counsel representing the defendant in the trial Court. Accordingly, it becomes manifest that the statement by cross-examination recorded on 17.10.2006 in the name of Sukhdev Singh was in fact statement of Harmeet Singh-plaintiff. 7. The plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box and examined Gulshan Kumar, Advocate PW-2, who had scribed the agreement as well as subsequent receipt and also examined Sukhdev Singh attesting witness of the agreement as PW-3. All of them have stated according to the version of the plaintiff. They have deposed that defendant executed the aforesaid agreement and received Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money. Plaintiff and Gulshan Kumar also deposed that defendant received further amount of Rs.25,000/- and executed receipt for the same on the back of the agreement. On the other hand, there is sole self-serving oral statement of the defendant in support of his version. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence on record have come to concurrent finding that defendant had executed the agreement and subsequent receipt. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff in his cross-examination admitted that the defendant used to sell his crop at the shop of the plaintiff and accounts between the parties were settled. However, this admission of plaintiff does not in any way adversely affected the case of the plaintiff nor it supports the case of the plaintiff in any manner. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff fabricated the agreement under the guise of settlement of accounts. The contention cannot be accepted because the plaintiff stated that accounts were settled in the year 2004 in the office of Market Committee. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff fabricated the agreement under the guise of settlement of accounts. The contention cannot be accepted because the plaintiff stated that accounts were settled in the year 2004 in the office of Market Committee. However, the impugned agreement is dated 16.05.2002 and subsequent receipt of Rs.25,000/- is dated 22.08.2003. Consequently, subsequent settlement of accounts in July, 2004 has nothing to do with the execution of the agreement or the receipt. 9. On the other hand, the defendant admitted his signatures on the agreement. The plaintiff has also led cogent evidence to prove his case. The plaintiff has examined scribe of the agreement, who is an Advocate. The plaintiff also examined one attesting witness. The plaintiff himself also stepped into the witness-box. The plaintiff’s evidence is thus very cogent and credible. On the other hand, defendant’s self-serving statement does not rebut the plaintiff’s evidence and does not inspire confidence. 10. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 03.08.2010. --------------