JUDGMENT Mr. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.: - A suit seeking a decree of possession in respect of the suit property based on title filed by Yogesh Chandra Sharma/plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.03.2009. The civil appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been accepted by the lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 03.06.2011 and resultantly, his suit has been decreed and he has been held entitled to the possession of the suit property. The defendants/appellants are in second appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad. 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit pleading that he had purchased the suit property i.e. two plots bearing No.21 & 22 total measuring 14 marlas situated in Moza Badkhal, Tehsil and District Faridabad vide sale deed dated 27.11.1989 from vendors Shyam Lal and Vinod Kumar for valuable consideration. The plaintiff had been put in physical possession of such suit property in the year 1989 itself and he had even raised a boundary wall at the spot. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is a practicing advocate in Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur and seldom visits Faridabad and as such by taking an advantage of his absence, the defendants have trespassed over the suit property and have even raised certain construction. Such encroachment came to the knowledge of the plaintiff on 24.01.2003 and the defendants having refused to remove such encroachment and to vacate the suit property, hence the suit. 3. The suit was contested in terms of filing separate written statements by defendant Nos.1 & 2. The stand however, taken by both the defendants, who happens to be husband and wife is that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the suit property to defendant No.2 on 24.12.1996 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,10,000/-. It was pleaded that the entire sale consideration had been paid and the defendants had been put in possession of the suit property. Accordingly, defendant No.2 claimed to be absolute owner of the suit property. 4. The following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of the suit property on the grounds taken in the plaint? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. 4. The following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of the suit property on the grounds taken in the plaint? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Relief. 5. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 21.03.2009 and the plaintiff being aggrieved by the same preferred a civil appeal and the same has been accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 03.06.2011 whereby, the suit for possession in respect of the suit property based on title has been decreed and the defendants have been directed to hand over the vacant possession thereof. 6. I have heard Mr. Mani Ram Verma, advocate for the appellants and Mr. Yogesh Chandra, respondent-in-person. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are perverse and based on mis-reading and mis-appreciation of evidence. Learned counsel would vehemently argue that once an agreement to sell of immovable property had been entered into and the entire sale consideration having been paid to the plaintiff and the defendants having been put in possession of the suit property the suit for possession at the hands of the plaintiff was not maintainable. Learned counsel would further contend that the defendants i.e. the present appellants were entitled to the protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. 8. Per contra, the plaintiff/respondent appearing in person would contend that the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are well reasoned, based on due appreciation of evidence adduced on record and do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of respective parties and have perused the case file minutely. 10. The finding of fact recorded is that mutation No.5428 Ex.P-1 was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff/respondent in respect of the suit property on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 27.11.1989, Ex.P-2. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of respective parties and have perused the case file minutely. 10. The finding of fact recorded is that mutation No.5428 Ex.P-1 was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff/respondent in respect of the suit property on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 27.11.1989, Ex.P-2. No documentary evidence was adduced on record to reflect any transfer of title in relation to the suit property in favour of the defendants/appellants. The entire case of the defendants/appellants is based on an alleged agreement to sell, Ex.D-1 and receipt, Ex.D-2. The lower appellate Court has upon due appreciation of evidence held the same to be not proved. The first appellate Court has also held the payment of sale consideration in terms of Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 also to be not proved. While recording such finding, the testimony of Smt. Raj Rani-defendant/appellant No.2 has been noticed wherein, while appearing as DW1, she had stated that her husband had been employed in the Courts at Faridabad and availed a loan of Rs.1,20,000/- to make good the sale consideration amount and balance had been paid by sale of her jewellery. No evidence had been led towards corroboration of the plea as regards raising of loan and even the husband of Smt. Raj Rani i.e. Brij Bhushan Sharma, defendant/appellant No.1 did not step into the witness box to support the claim of DW1. Still further, the different stands taken by DW1, Smt. Raj Rani have also weighed with the lower appellate Court. Initially, she testified that in pursuance to the sale agreement, Ex.D-1 a sale deed regarding the suit property had been executed at Delhi. Lateron, she claimed that the sale deed had been executed at Faridabad. No such sale deed was forthcoming nor produced. Even as regards the payment of consideration amount as per alleged sale agreement, Ex.D-1, Smt. Raj Rani initially testified that the payment in cash had been handed over to the plaintiff/respondent but later on, she contradicted herself in terms of testifying that the sale consideration amount had infact been given to the property dealer by her husband. 11. The lower appellate Court has even held the credibility of the attesting witnesses and the scribe to the alleged document Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 to be questionable. The deposition of hand writing expert has also not been found to be convincing. 11. The lower appellate Court has even held the credibility of the attesting witnesses and the scribe to the alleged document Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 to be questionable. The deposition of hand writing expert has also not been found to be convincing. In a nutshell, the agreement and receipt Ex.D-1 and D-2 have been disbelieved. 12. I do not find any patent infirmity in the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court as regards discarding the documents Ex.D-1 and D-2 are concerned. Such finding of fact based on due appreciation of evidence would be binding on the High Court unless the same are shown to be perverse. In regard thereto, I do not find any mis-reading and misappreciation of evidence. 13. Even otherwise, Ex.D-1 was at best an agreement to sell. Such an agreement would not confer a title upon the defendants/appellants as regards the suit property. Admittedly, no sale deed had been executed in pursuance to such alleged sale agreement, Ex.D-1. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Bhola Singh Vs. Ratia 1989 (1) Recent Revenue Reports 207 to contend that the entire sale consideration having been paid in pursuance to a valid agreement of sale and the defendant having entered possession in the suit property towards part performance of such agreement, the benefit of protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act was available to the defendants/appellants. 15. Even though, I have not found any perversity in the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court as regards there being any valid sale agreement, yet, I would proceed to even deal with such argument on an assumption that Ex.D-1 i.e. the sale agreement had infact been entered into between the parties. 16. The plaintiff/respondent in the present suit had claimed possession over the suit property on the basis of his title thereto. The defendants i.e. the present appellants could have defeated their claim only upon establishing their defence of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. 16. The plaintiff/respondent in the present suit had claimed possession over the suit property on the basis of his title thereto. The defendants i.e. the present appellants could have defeated their claim only upon establishing their defence of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The defence of part performance would be available only upon the following conditions being satisfied: i) That the transferor had contracted to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the term necessary to constitute the transfer could be assertained with reasonable certainty and that the transferee had in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, ii) the transferee being already in possession continues in possession in part performance of the contract iii) that the transferee had done something in furtherance of the contract and iv) that the transferee had performed or was willing to perform his part of the contract 17. In the facts of the present case, the defendants/appellants neither pleaded in terms of raising a plea in the written statement and nor did they establish in terms of leading evidence that they had taken any steps towards furtherance of the contract i.e. the sale agreement or that they had been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The existence of a right to claim protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be available to the defendants/appellants as they had admittedly just kept quiet and had remained passive without taking any consequential and effective steps in pursuance to the alleged sale agreement that could have ripened into title in their favour. 18. The judgment rendered in Bhola Singh Vs. Ratia (Supra) relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the appellants is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case, there was a valid agreement of sale and the defendants have been put in possession towards part performance of the sale but the sale deed could not be executed and registered as the suit property was not under mortgage with bank and as per the agreement, the plaintiff therein had undertaken to get the sale deed executed and registered after getting the land redeemed from the mortgagor. It was under such facts that the suit of the plaintiff for possession has been held to be dishonest . It was under such facts that the suit of the plaintiff for possession has been held to be dishonest . 19. For the reasons recorded above, I find no basis to interfere with the well reasoned findings recorded by the lower appellate Court. The present second appeal must fail as it does not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law. 20. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.