JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J. Heard Shri D. V. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri N. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit registered Suit No.335 of 2007 for specific performance of contract with alternative relief that the sum of Rs.2 lakh to be paid to the defendant-appellant with interest @ 10% in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jyotiba Phulenagar. 3. In the said matter, the defendant-appellant filed a written statement denying that he has executed any agreement to sell rather his case was that defendant wanted Rs.20,000.00 for treatment and medical expenses, taking benefit of illiteracy of the defendant appellant, he got executed the agreement to sell. 4. The trial court on the basis of the material on record as well as oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 31.01.2014. 5. Aggrieved by the said facts, the defendant-appellant filed a Civil Appeal No.7 of 2014, dismissed by judgment and decree dated 28.7.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Jyotiba Phulenagar. 6. In view of the above said factual background, the present second appeal has been filed and the same has been pressed on the following substantial questions of law : - "Whether the plaintiff's case could be said to have been proved if by statement P.W.1 and P.W.2 could not prove the execution of agreement to sell alleged to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff ? Whether the findings recorded by the courts below that the plaintiff's succeeded in proving his case regarding execution of agreement to sell by the plaintiff appellant by statement of plaintiff and his witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 are not perverse if the D.W.3 stated after looking agreement to sell that he did not know nature of that document and what is written therein was also not known to him ?" 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the loan of Rs.20,000/- has been taken by the defendant-appellant for his medical expenses. However, taking an advantage, he is an illiterate person and agreement to sell has been executed to sell the property in question. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the loan of Rs.20,000/- has been taken by the defendant-appellant for his medical expenses. However, taking an advantage, he is an illiterate person and agreement to sell has been executed to sell the property in question. Further, the plaintiff/respondent was failed to prove that the agreement to sell has been executed by way of any cogent evidence, rather the same is outcome of fraud committed by plaintiff with Sub-Registrar, Hasanpur. The said fact has been categorically born out from the statement of P.W.-3/Sukhi Singh. So, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court is liable to be rejected. 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the records. 9. From the perusal of the material on record, the position which emerges out is that concurrent findings have been given by both the courts below that on the basis of the expert report of Shri A. K. Gupta, Finger Print Expert that on the agreement to sell dated 23.07.2007, there is a thumb impression of defendantppellant. Further, both the courts below have also given a finding that as per the terms of the agreement to sell dated 23.07.2007, 20.07.2007 has been fixed for date of executing of sale deed.. However, without any justification, the defendant-appellant has failed to perform his obligation arising out of the contract. The plaintiff/respondent has proved the execution of agreement to sale deed dated 23.07.2007 in respect of one of the half part of the land which has been recorded as Khasra No.1.477 hectare situated at Gram Tuklabad, Tehsil, Hasanpur District-Jyotiba Phulenagar. 10. In addition to the above said facts, both the courts below have given a concurrent finding that P.W.2/Amar Singh and P.W.3/Sukhi Singh in their evidence had categorically stated that it is clearly established that agreement to sell has been read in their presence as well as presence of defendant-appellant. 11. Thus keeping in view the said finding of facts given by the Courts below in the present case as well as taking into consideration that the Apex Court depreciated the liberal construction and generous application of provisions of Section 100 , C.P.C. Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that only because there is another view possible on appreciation of evidence that cannot be sufficient for interference under Section 100 C.P.C. 12. In Satya Gupta (Smt.) alias Madhu Gupta Vs. In Satya Gupta (Smt.) alias Madhu Gupta Vs. Brijesh Kumar , 1998 (6) SCC 423 by the Supreme Court as under : - "At the outset , we would like to point out that the findings on facts by the lower appellate court as a final Court of facts, are based on appreciation of evidence and the same cannot be treated as a perverse or based on no evidence. That being the position , we are of the view that the High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence and without finding that the conclusions reached by the Lower Appellate Court were not based on the evidence, reversed the conclusions on fact on the ground that the view taken by it was also a possible view on the facts. The High Court, it is well settled, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot reverse the findings of Lower Appellate Court on facts merely on the ground that on the fact found by the Lower Appellate Court another view was possible." 13. Similar view was given by the Supreme Court in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam V. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and others, 1999 (36) ALR 218 (SC) and Hamida and other V. Md. Khalil, 2001 (45) AlR 23 (SC). , wherein it is held : - "It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at, by the last Court of fact, being the first Appellate Court. It is true that the lower Appellate Court should not ordinarily reject witnesses accepted by the Trial Court in respect of credibility but even where it has rejected the witnesses accepted by the Trial Court, the same is no ground for interference in Second Appeal when it is found that the Appellate Court has given satisfactory reasons for doing so. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible, one drawn by the Lower Appellate Court is binding on the High Court in Second Appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible . In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible, one drawn by the Lower Appellate Court is binding on the High Court in Second Appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible . The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first Appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the Lower Appellate Court where erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court , or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence." 14. It is well settled by a long series of decisions o the judicial committee of the Privy Council and of this Court that a High Court on second appeal, cannot go into questions of fact, however, erroneous the findings of fact recorded by the Courts of fact may be. It is not necessary to cite those decisions. Indeed, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant did not and could not contend that the High Court was competent to go behind the findings of fact concurrently recorded by the two courts of fact. 15. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and after a careful consideration of arguments of the respective Counsel, I do not find any error of law in the two concurrent conclusions recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in the instant appeal. The judgment under challenged cannot be interfered in this appeal in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal lacks merits and is dismissed .