JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Legal representatives of Ram Chander original defendant since deceased have filed this second appeal, having lost in both the courts below. 2. Respondent-plaintiff Ramroop filed suit against defendant- Ram Chander for possession of the suit land measuring 2 kanals 16 marlas by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 03.11.2006. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for Rs.1,06,000/- and received Rs.1,05,000/- as earnest money and executed the aforesaid agreement. Sale deed was to be executed on 10.03.2007. The plaintiff went to office of Sub-Registrar on 10.03.2007. However, it was holiday on 10.03.2007 and 11.03.2007 being Saturday and Sunday. Then on 12.03.2007, the plaintiff again went to the office of the Sub-Registrar and remained there from morning till evening for getting the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement but the defendant did not turn up. The plaintiff also served notice on the defendant for executing the sale deed but the defendant refused to receive the notice. The plaintiff claimed that he had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but the defendant committed breach thereof. 3. The defendant pleaded that there were money dealings between the parties. The defendant had borrowed Rs.70,000/- from the plaintiff on interest @5% per annum and was to repay the total amount of Rs.98,000/- on 30.10.2006 but he could not make the said payment and sought further time of 3-4 months. Thereupon the plaintiff, for granting more time to the defendant, obtained thumb impressions of the defendant on stamp papers as security for the loan. Defendant affixed thumb impressions without reading the contents thereof. It was also pleaded that market value of the suit land was Rs.12,00,000/-. Some other pleas were also raised. 4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kosli vide judgment and decree dated 26.05.2009 decreed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by defendant through legal representatives has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2011. Feeling aggrieved, legal representatives of defendant have filed this second appeal. 5. I have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 6. First appeal preferred by defendant through legal representatives has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2011. Feeling aggrieved, legal representatives of defendant have filed this second appeal. 5. I have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the appellants contended that defendant’s witnesses have broadly stated according to the defendant’s version and even Chander Bhan, Lamberdar PW-3 examined by the plaintiff has stated that the amount was taken by defendant Ram Chander as he needed money for procuring service for his son and, therefore, it is proved that the impugned agreement was obtained as security for repayment of loan. 7. I have carefully considered the aforesaid condition but the same has no merit. The plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box and has examined scribe and both attesting witnesses of the agreement. All of them have stated according to the plaintiff’s version. Plaintiff has also examined Stamp Vandor from whom stamp paper for the impugned agreement was purchased. He has also supported the plaintiff’s version. The defendant in his written statement has virtually admitted not only his thumb impressions on the impugned agreement but also execution thereof. It is not his case that his thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers. His case is that he affixed his thumb impressions without going through the contents of the agreement. In view of this stand of the defendant, plaintiff’s evidence regarding due execution of the agreement is more than sufficient to prove his case. The plaintiff has led overwhelming cogent evidence in support of his case. In view thereof and in view of contents of the impugned agreement, defendant’s oral evidence is not sufficient to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff. 8. Statement of Chander Bhan PW-3 does not help the appellants in any manner. Case of the defendant is that he had taken Rs.70,000/- as loan from the plaintiff some (eight) months prior to 30.10.2006 and was to repay the same with interest totaling Rs.98,000/- till 30.10.2006, but could not pay the same and, therefore, as security for extending the time for repayment, the plaintiff had obtained the impugned agreement. However, Chander Bhan PW-3 stated that defendant Ram Chander had taken the amount of Rs.1,05,000/- from the plaintiff on 03.11.2006 at the time of execution of the agreement. However, Chander Bhan PW-3 stated that defendant Ram Chander had taken the amount of Rs.1,05,000/- from the plaintiff on 03.11.2006 at the time of execution of the agreement. Consequently, testimony of Chander Bhan PW-3 does not corroborate the defendant’s version in any manner. The defendant might be needing the money for service of his son as stated by Chander Bhan. However, if for satisfying his said necessity, the defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the impugned agreement was executed as security for loan. 9. Concurrent finding recorded by both the courts to decree the suit of the plaintiff is thus fully justified by the evidence on record. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or missappreciation of evidence. To the contrary, the said finding is the only reasonable finding that can be arrived at on appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the said finding does not call for interference in this second appeal nor it gives rise to any question of law, much less substantial question of law, for adjudication in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is bereft of merit and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------