JUDGMENT 1. - This civil second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. has been preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2011 passed by District Judge, Pali in Civil Appeal No. 52/2007 whereby the learned lower appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2007 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Pali in Civil Original Suit No. 5/2006, whereby the learned trial court dismissed the suit for specific performance of contract filed by the appellants-plaintiffs. 2. The brief facts of the case as set out in the memo of appeal are that husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of the appellants No. 2 to 6, Shri Madan Singh had been living in the premises situated at Adarsh Nagar Extension Colony, Pali since 1965, the details of which have been given in para No. 1 of the plaint. As per the case of the plaintiffs-appellants, they are in possession of the said property since 1965 and for that purpose, even notice (Ex.P/3) was issued by the respondent defendant- Municipal Council to deposit a sum of Rs. 880/- for execution of the sale-deed and late Madan Singh deposited in the sum of Rs. 250/- and Rs. 880/- vide Ex.P/3 & 5 in the month of June, 1965. He further deposited Rs. 5000/- vide Ex.P/6. Thus, the entire amount of allotment was deposited for the said plot. However, on 2.7.1984, a communication was issued by the respondent-defendant Municipal Board in regard to the plot in question inter alia stating that certain documents are missing in the File No. 226/65 of the Municipal Board, Pali, therefore, Patta was not being issued to him. Hence, they asked late Madan Singh to deposit compensation of Rs. 5000/-. Late Madan Singh disputed the recovery of compensation on the ground that it was not the mistake on his part that certain papers were missing from the file. Apprehending eviction by the defendant initially for permanent injunction restraining the respondents not to dispossess them without following due process of law. The said suit was decreed in favour of the appellants vide order dated 26.10.2005. The defendant council also filed a criminal complaint under Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, in which, the appellants were acquitted vide order dated 23.2.2007. The said suit was decreed in favour of the appellants vide order dated 26.10.2005. The defendant council also filed a criminal complaint under Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, in which, the appellants were acquitted vide order dated 23.2.2007. It has been stated that earlier, the plaintiff had served a notice dated 20.12.1985 to the defendant, in response to which, they submitted that the matter is pending in the court, therefore, they are unable to execute the sale-deed. Hence, the appellants-plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant on 29.9.1988. 3. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. They averred that the property in question belongs to Municipal Board, Pali. The encroachment made by the plaintiff over the suit property was removed on 29.9.1985 and 1.10.1985. The possession of the plaintiff before 1965 over the suit property was denied. It was averred that the property in question has not been sold to the plaintiff because it was registered in the name of Pukhraj and patta whereof has been issued on 17.2.1966. The appellant plaintiff made illegal encroachment by preparing forged documents. Therefore, the suit filed on the basis of forged documents is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed five issues including relief and recorded the evidence of both the parties. In oral evidence, plaintiffs examined P.W.1 Mahipal Singh, PW-2 Chainpuri, PW- 3 Jabbar Singh, PW-4 Vishnu Dutt Harsh, PW-5 Kailash Narayan, PW-6 Shiv Narayan and PW-7 Narendra Arora and in documentary evidence exhibited documents from Ex.1 to Ex.6. The defendant in rebuttal examined D.W.1 Chhagan Lal and DW-2 Banshi Lal. 5. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the suit filed by the appellants plaintiffs vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.08.2007. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned lower appellate court. The said appeal has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.12.2011. 6. Hence, being aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, the appellants-plaintiffs have preferred this civil second appeal. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned lower appellate court. The said appeal has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.12.2011. 6. Hence, being aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, the appellants-plaintiffs have preferred this civil second appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs contended that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court is absolutely perverse and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The finding given by the trial court regarding the possession over the land in question is absolutely perverse and also against the facts available on record, hence liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs further contended that vide Exhibit-4, the Municipal Board, Pali communicated the appellants' father about receipt of the payment in 1965 and the said Exhibit-4 and receipt has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court as well as by the first appellate court. The total sum of Rs. 6130/- were deposited by the appellant's father way back in the year 1965. The proof of the requisite depositing of the amount has been produced before the learned trial court vide Exhibits, 2, 5 & 6 and in this regard, the permission has been granted by the learned trial court to lead secondary evidence. The provisions of Section 80 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 were wrongly interpreted because under the provisions of Section 80 of the Municipalities Act, the Municipality can enter into any contract and the contract can be in terms of the transfer of any movable or immovable property belonging to the Municipal Board. As the amount has been deposited way back in 1965, the part performance of the contract has been completed by the appellants. The suit was filed only for specific performance of the contract and in such cases, there cannot be question of violation of the provisions of Section 80 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs further contended that the learned trial court as well as the first appellate court has not appreciated the exhibits adduced by the appellants-plaintiffs in appropriate perspective whereas the secondary evidence was permitted to be led by the appellants-plaintiffs. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs further contended that the learned trial court as well as the first appellate court has not appreciated the exhibits adduced by the appellants-plaintiffs in appropriate perspective whereas the secondary evidence was permitted to be led by the appellants-plaintiffs. The documents are already exhibited and therefore, admissible in evidence after permission was granted on 23.7.2002 and therefore, the finding of the learned trial court as well as the first appellate court is erroneous. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs also contended that the finding of the learned trial court as well as first appellate court regarding the fact that the plaintiff was encroacher over the suit property, is also perverse and against the material available on record. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants has cited following judgments in support of his arguments: (1) Lal Chand v. Thakur Das & Ors, reported in 1990 (2) RLR 355 ; (2) Saifuddin Saheblal Vazir v. Smt.Habjabai Mishra Patel & Anr. reported in AIR 2003 Bombay 36 and (3) Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors.; (2009) 9 SCC 221 . 12. The learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs has proposed the following substantial questions of law in the memo of appeal:- "(i) Whether once a document has been marked as an exhibit and it is not objected to by the opposite party, such party is estopped from questioning its admissibility later on and in the present case Exhibit-3 to Exhibit-6 had been specifically marked after leading secondary evidence and therefore, those documents could not be rendered inadmissible as held by the appellate Court? (ii) Whether the reference to Section 80 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act of 1959 by the learned Trial Court with reference to issue No. 1 was completely inapposite and irrelevant because Section 80 speaks about registration of document whilst the present case was for specific performance arising out of part performance as embodied under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. (iii) Whether once the document had been exhibited, made admissible coupled with the specific finding of documents being not forged, the same should have been relied both by the Courts below for grant of specific performance? (iii) Whether once the document had been exhibited, made admissible coupled with the specific finding of documents being not forged, the same should have been relied both by the Courts below for grant of specific performance? (iv) Whether the documents Exhibit-3 to Exhibit-6 would stand proved in law once it is exhibited and therefore, made admissible and simultaneously a specific finding about a document being not forged given by the learned Trial Court and no appeal preferred against the same? (v) Whether the deposit of Rs. 880/- (Exhibit-5) demand for Rs. 880 (Exhibit-3) deposit of further Rs. 5000/- (Exhibit-6) as well as the acknowledgment about all these transactions (Exhibit-4 dated 2.7.1984 would unmistakably indicate that the consideration was paid but still the municipality did not execute the sale deed in favour of the appellants therein? (vi) Whether the finding given by the learned Trial Court dated 30.8.2007 as affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court dated 20.12.2011 are perverse and cannot be sustained in the eye of law." 13. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and perused the judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as by the first appellate court. The suit was filed for specific performance of the contract and the learned trial court framed following five issues including the relief:- " 1- vk;k oknh ,oa izfroknh ds e/; fookfnr Hkw[k.M ds cspku dks ysdj fof/kor :i ls bZdjkj gqvk Fkk ftlds rgr oknh us Lo;a ds Hkkx ij ekStwn leLr dRrO;ksa dh iwfrZ dj nh gSa\& oknh 2- vk;k izfroknh voS/k :i ls fookfnr Hkw[k.M dh jftLV~h oknh ds i{k esa ugh djok jgk gSa rFkk oknh fookfnr Hkw[k.M dh jftLV~h tfj;s U;k;ky; Lo;a ds i{k esa djokus dk vf/kdkjh gSa & oknh 3- vk;k oknh fookfnr ij fof/k ds vuqlkj dkfct gSaA& oknh 4- vk;k izfroknh }kjk leLr nLrkostkr QthZ is'k fd;s x;s gSa rFkk vxj ,slk gSa rks oknh ij D;k vlj iM+sxk\&izfroknh 5- vuqrks"k\ " 14. While deciding issue No. 1, the learned trial court considered the judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiff in Sardar Gulab Singh v. Punjab Jamindari Bank Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR (29) 1942 Lahor page 47 and the judgment was distinguished by the learned trial court. While deciding issue No. 1, the learned trial court considered the judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiff in Sardar Gulab Singh v. Punjab Jamindari Bank Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR (29) 1942 Lahor page 47 and the judgment was distinguished by the learned trial court. The learned trial court referred that under the provisions of Section 80 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, the contract has to be entered into by the Municipal Board and no such documentary evidence has been produced by the appellants-plaintiffs, therefore, no agreement came into existence. The learned trial court also considered the judgment reported in AIR 1985, Andhra Pradesh 550 Alpatti Ramamurti & Ors. v. Poliseti Satyanarayan. The learned trial court also discussed the provisions of Section 80 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 and in my considered view, the findings of the learned trial court as well as of the first appellate court on issue No. 1 does not require any interference. The finding is based on appreciation of the documentary as well as the oral evidence under relevant law applicable in the circumstances of the case. 15. In view of the affirmation of finding on issue No. 1, the finding of the trial court on issue No. 2 is also affirmed. 16. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that there was no necessity to record a finding regarding the possession of the property is concerned, it does not carry any force because in written statement, the defendant has specifically pleaded that plaintiff is in possession of the property as encroacher and therefore, this issue was framed and on this issue while discussing the evidence of PW-5 Kailash Narayan and PW-6 Shiv Narayan and the plaintiff himself, recorded its finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the property as encroacher. It cannot be said that the said finding of the learned trial court as well as of first appellate court is totally uncalled and irrelevant because the plaintiff himself came with the case that he is in possession of the suit property in pursuance of the agreement. No documentary evidence has been produced in this behalf by the appellants-plaintiffs in the trial court as well as the first appellate court. Accordingly, the finding on issue No. 3 cannot be said to be perverse, illegal and against the material available on record. 17. No documentary evidence has been produced in this behalf by the appellants-plaintiffs in the trial court as well as the first appellate court. Accordingly, the finding on issue No. 3 cannot be said to be perverse, illegal and against the material available on record. 17. I have also perused the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellants. In these judgments, it has been held that once the document exhibited cannot be held to be inadmissible in evidence and even otherwise, these judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellants cannot be of any assistance in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand keeping in view the other evidence available on record. 18. In view of the discussion made herein-above, I find no illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the findings arrived at by the learned trial court as affirmed by the learned first appellate court. The impugned judgments passed by the courts below do not call for any interference at the second appellate stage. No substantial question of law as proposed by the learned counsel for the appellant in the memo of appeal is involved in this appeal and the appeal is bereft of any merit. 19. Accordingly, this second appeal being bereft of merit is dismissed at admission stage. 20. A copy of this order be sent to the respondents.Appeal Dismissed. *******