JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - C.M. No. 2988-C of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal : 1. Defendants no.1 and 2, having been unsuccessful in both the courts below, have filed this second appeal. 2. Respondent no.1-plaintiff Balwinder Singh filed suit against appellants and against respondent no.2 Jetha Nand as defendant no.3. Plaintiff’s case is that defendants no.1 and 2 agreed to sell the suit property including four shops to plaintiff and defendant no.3 for Rs.2,00,000/- and received Rs.25,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff and executed agreement dated 12.04.2002. Defendant no.3 was to pay another amount of Rs.25,000/- towards earnest money up to 10.05.2002 and it was paid accordingly. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 12.08.2002 in favour of plaintiff and defendant no.3 or in favour of anybody else at their instance. Meanwhile, on 13.05.2002, defendant no.3 relinquished his rights under the agreement in favour of plaintiff by receiving Rs.45,000/- from him i.e. Rs.25,000/- paid by defendant no.3 as earnest money and Rs.20,000/- as additional amount. Agreement dated 13.06.2002 in this regard was executed by defendant no.3 in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff attended the office of Sub Registrar on 12.08.2002 to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement, but defendants no.1 and 2 did not turn up and committed breach of the agreement, whereas the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought possession of the suit property by specific performance of the agreement and in the alternative, sought recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest. 3. Defendant no.3, in his written statement, admitted the claim of the plaintiff. 4. Defendants no.1 and 2 contested the suit and pleaded the disputed shops are in possession of tenants, who have not been impleaded as party to the suit, and therefore, relief of possession cannot be granted. Defendants no.1 and 2 broadly denied the plaint averments. They denied having entered into agreement to sell the suit property to plaintiff and defendant no.3. It was pleaded that plaintiff and defendant no.3 had approached husbands of defendants no.1 and 2 for purchasing the disputed shops only and not the vacant area lying behind the shops. Defendants no.1 and 2 broadly denied the plaint averments. They denied having entered into agreement to sell the suit property to plaintiff and defendant no.3. It was pleaded that plaintiff and defendant no.3 had approached husbands of defendants no.1 and 2 for purchasing the disputed shops only and not the vacant area lying behind the shops. Later on, plaintiff and defendant no.3 came to defendants no.1 and 2 at their house in the absence of their husbands and told that deal had been struck with their husbands and accordingly, defendants no.1 and 2 were made to sign blank stamp papers and other papers. Later on, draft agreement was shown to husband of defendant no.2, who, however, did not approve the draft agreement as proper sale consideration was not mentioned and vacant space had also been included and the draft agreement was not in consonance with the agreed terms and conditions. Plaintiff and defendant no.3 took back the draft agreement to prepare amended draft on its basis. However, they did not turn up later on and fabricated the impugned agreement and receipt. Various other pleas were also raised. 5. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gidderbaha, vide judgment and decree dated 03.03.2010, decreed the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance of the agreement. First appeal preferred by defendants no.1 and 2 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.2012. Feeling aggrieved, defendants no.1 and 2 have filed the instant second appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 7. Plaintiff, besides himself stepping into the witness-box, has examined Mr. Gopal Baghla, Advocate (PW-5), who drafted the impugned agreement and both attesting witnesses of the agreement namely Mr. Sarwan Singh (PW-2) and Mr. Karam Singh (PW-3). All of them have broadly stated according to the plaintiff’s version. 8. On the other hand, defendant no.1 and husband of defendant no.2 stepped into the witness box and examined three other witnesses including Gurdip Singh (DW-2) and Neeta Nand (DW-3) – alleged tenants in the disputed shops. They broadly stated according to version of defendants no.1 and 2. 9. Harish Kumar – stamp vendor (DW-1) deposed that entry regarding sale of stamp paper in question does not bear signatures of defendant no.1 in his register. 10. Plaintiff has led ample evidence to prove his case. They broadly stated according to version of defendants no.1 and 2. 9. Harish Kumar – stamp vendor (DW-1) deposed that entry regarding sale of stamp paper in question does not bear signatures of defendant no.1 in his register. 10. Plaintiff has led ample evidence to prove his case. Scribe and both attesting witnesses of the agreement have supported the plaintiff’s case. Defendants no.1 and 2 have admitted their signatures on the impugned agreement. Defendants no.1 and 2 have failed to prove that their signatures had been affixed on blank stamp papers and other blank papers. On the contrary, the agreement is dated 12.04.2002, whereas there is also subsequent receipt dated 10.05.2002 for further earnest money of Rs.25,000/- paid by defendant no.3 to defendants no.1 and 2. It cannot be said that signatures of defendants no.1 and 2 on the said receipt had also been obtained when signatures were obtained on the agreement. Plaintiff’s evidence has been found to be reliable by both the courts below. There is no infirmity in the said finding of the courts below. 11. Counsel for the appellants contended that plaintiff and defendant no.3 obtained the agreement for trading in the property because it was recited in the agreement that sale deed may be obtained in favour of third person also by plaintiff and defendant no.3. The contention is completely frivolous and meritless. No such plea was even raised in the written statement or before the courts below, nor there is any material on record to substantiate the aforesaid contention. On the contrary, such recital is invariably made in every agreement to sell. Moreover, the agreement would not become invalid or unenforceable merely on this ground. 12. Counsel for the appellants also contended that defendant no.3 could not assign his rights under the agreement to the plaintiff. The contention cannot be accepted. There is no reason why defendant no.3 could not relinquish his rights under the agreement in favour of the plaintiff. On the contrary, the agreement itself stipulates that sale deed could be obtained in favour of anybody. Consequently, the sale deed could be obtained in favour of plaintiff only also and not necessarily in favour of both plaintiff and defendant no.3. On the contrary, the agreement itself stipulates that sale deed could be obtained in favour of anybody. Consequently, the sale deed could be obtained in favour of plaintiff only also and not necessarily in favour of both plaintiff and defendant no.3. Contention of counsel for the appellant that the agreement did not create any title in the property in favour of defendant no.3 has no bearing on the aforesaid proposition as to whether defendant no.3 could assign his rights under the agreement in favour of plaintiff or not. Even if no title in the property was created under the agreement in favour of the plaintiff or defendant no.3, even then rights under the agreement could be assigned by defendant no.3 in favour of the plaintiff. It cannot be said that defendant no.3 had no right whatsoever under the agreement. 13. Counsel for the appellants also contended that tenants of the disputed shops have not been impleaded as party to the suit. This contention also merits rejection. According to agreement, defendants no.1 and 2 were in possession of the disputed property and they were to hand over possession thereof to the vendees at the time of sale deed. If, after the agreement, defendants no.1 and 2 have inducted any tenants in the disputed property, defendants no.1 and 2 cannot take advantage of their own wrong. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal, which is completely frivolous. Concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below does not suffer from any perversity or illegality not it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. The said finding, therefore, does not warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------