JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. dated 28.7.2004, passed in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2002. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents-plaintiffs, namely, Hari Krishan (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has instituted suit for specific performance of contract dated 4.7.1993 and permanent prohibitory injunction and also for damages against the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). According to the plaintiff, the house comprised in khewat no. 400 min, khatauni No. 722, Kh. No. 1313, measuring 12.22 sq. meters, situated in upper Samkhetar Street, Mandi town, Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. was previously owned and possessed by Radha Devi. The compound comprised in Khewat No. 400 min, Khatauni No. 719 min, Kh. No. 1316 measuring 32.12 sq. meters and the paths comprised in Khewat No. 400 min, Kh. No. 1321 and 1322, measuring 18.00 sq. meters and 16.77 sq. meters, respectively, was previously owned and possessed by Smt. Radha Devi, Krishan Chand, Geeta, Himachali and Murari Lal and the plaintiff and the compound and paths were being used by these persons alongwith the plaintiff. It is also averred that the house comprised in Khewat No. 400 min, Khatauni No. 721 min, Kh. No. 1314, measuring 11.55 sq. meters was also previously owned and possessed by Radha Devi, Krishan Chand, Geeta, Himachali and the plaintiff in equal shares. It is averred that during her life time, Radha Devi executed a contract of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 4.7.1993 and agreed to sell the house owned and possessed by her as described in para 1 of the plaint and also agreed to sell her share of the compound and paths as mentioned in para 2 of the plaint to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- and had received Rs. 5000/- as earnest money. Radha Devi also agreed to sell her share of the house as mentioned in para 3 of the plaint to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 3000/- and had received Rs. 500/- as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed and registered within one year and the balance amount of consideration was to be paid at that time before the concerned authorities. 3000/- and had received Rs. 500/- as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed and registered within one year and the balance amount of consideration was to be paid at that time before the concerned authorities. The possession was to be handed over at the same time. It was also agreed that the party who would breach any of the conditions of the agreement, that party would be liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- as damages to the other party. Radha Devi died on 28.8.1993. The defendants No. 2 to 6 inherited the suit property in equal shares. The defendants No. 2 to 6 appointed their father Sh. Tek Chand as General Power of Attorney regarding the suit property. The plaintiff, in the month of September, 1994, requested Tek Chand, General Power of Attorney showing agreement to receive the balance amount consideration and execute the sale deed as per the agreement and hand over the possession to the plaintiff. He agreed to do the needful within two months. On 26.10.1994, the plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 1 and Tek Chand, General Power of Attorney were executing an agreement to sell the suit property in favour of defendant no.1. The plaintiff requested them not to do so and showed them agreement to sell executed by Radha Devi in his favour. However, land comprised in Khewat No. 400 min, Kh. No. 1313 measuring 12.22 sq. meters was sold by the General Power of Attorney, Tek Chand to defendant No.1. Similarly, Tek Chand also got executed sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 on behalf of defendants No. 2 to 6 to the extent of 1/3rd share of land comprised in Kh. No. 1314. It was for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He has requested the defendants to hand over the possession. Notices were sent to defendants on 28.11.1994, which were received on 28.11.1994 and 29.11.1994. However, defendants have not admitted the claim of the plaintiff and continued in their illegal possession. It is, in these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. According to them, whole of Kh. No. 1313 did not come under the constructed house and area of house was only 11.56 sq. meters and 0.66 sq. meters is a vacant portion. It is, in these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. According to them, whole of Kh. No. 1313 did not come under the constructed house and area of house was only 11.56 sq. meters and 0.66 sq. meters is a vacant portion. The area initially was owned by Radha Devi and thereafter by defendant Govind Ram on the basis of sale executed on 28.10.1994. The plaintiff has nothing to do with the property described in para 2 of the plaint. The plaintiff was neither co-owner in possession nor was in use of paths and compound. The plaintiff was also not in possession of Kh. No. 1314. Radha Devi has never executed any agreement. According to them, it is stated by the plaintiff in the plaint that Radha Devi had agreed to execute the sale deed within one year, however, there is no mention about this fact in the alleged contract. She was a teacher and receiving handsome pension. Radha Devi expired on 28.8.1993 and agreement dated 4.7.1993 has expired. 4. The replication was filed by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court framed the issues on 24.6.1995. The suit was partly decreed vide judgment dated 31.12.2001. The defendants, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2001. The learned District Judge, Mandi, dismissed the same with costs on 28.7.2004. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. The regular second appeal was admitted on 27.4.2005, however, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court. On 1.12.2015, the appeal was again admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “1. Whether non-discussing the documentary evidence of the appellants Tatima Ext. DW-1/A, DW-1/B and Notice Ext. PC by the Courts below has resulted in mis-carriage and failure of justice to the appellants?” 6. Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record. According to him, tatima Ext. DW-1/A and DW-1/B and notice Ext. PC have not been correctly appreciated by the Courts below. On the other hand, Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. 7. According to him, tatima Ext. DW-1/A and DW-1/B and notice Ext. PC have not been correctly appreciated by the Courts below. On the other hand, Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. 7. I have heard the learned Advocates on both the sides and have also gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully. 8. PW-1 H.K. Sharma, testified that Radha Devi was his Massi (mother’s sister). She has received property from her mother at Upper Samkhetar Mohalla and had no brother or sister. Radha Devi used to tell him that her husband was going to sell the property to some other person and she wanted to sell the same to her relatives. She used to come to her house. Radha Devi showed her willingness to execute the agreement. He called witnesses Tara Chand, Pushap Raj and Hem Raj for 4.7.1993. Accordingly, Radha Devi came to his office on 4.7.1993 at about 12:30 and at about 1:00 PM, witnesses also reached. Tara Chand scribed the agreement to sell Ext. P-A. It was signed by him and Radha Devi considering the same to be correct and it was also signed by witnesses Tara Chand, Pushap Raj and Hem Raj. Radha Devi told him that sale deed will be executed and registered within a period of one year, but such condition may not be incorporated in the agreement to sell, because it could affect their relationship. The house was agreed to be sold for Rs. 40,000/- and 1/3rd share of room for Rs. 3000/- and earnest money paid was Rs. 5500/-. It was also settled that the possession would be given at the time of registration and execution of sale deed and the balance amount would also be paid. Radha Devi died on 28.8.1993 due to her illness. Thereafter, he told defendants and their General Power of Attorney, Tek Chand about agreement Ext. P-A and asked them to execute the sale deed. However, despite that they executed the sale deed Ext. P-B. He sent registered notices to Govind Ram vide postal receipt and AD Ext. PD and PE. Similarly, notices were also issued to Tek Chand General Power of Attorney of defendants. The postal receipt and AD are Ext. PF and PG. However, despite that the sale was executed. He has proved jamabandi Ext. PH. 9. P-B. He sent registered notices to Govind Ram vide postal receipt and AD Ext. PD and PE. Similarly, notices were also issued to Tek Chand General Power of Attorney of defendants. The postal receipt and AD are Ext. PF and PG. However, despite that the sale was executed. He has proved jamabandi Ext. PH. 9. PW-2 Mohinder Pal testified that he knew the parties to the suit. Ext. PA was executed in his presence by Radha Devi in favour of plaintiff Hari Krishan for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 3000/-. She had received earnest money of Rs. 5500/-. The agreement was scribed by Tara Chand in presence of Radha Devi and Hari Krishan. Thereafter, the agreement was read over to both the parties in the presence of witnesses Pushap Raj and Hem Raj. Both the parties and witnesses put their signatures. Radha Devi had agreed to execute the sale deed within a period of one year but with the personal relation with the plaintiff asked not to write the condition of one year in the agreement. On 26.10.1994, he was called over telephone by plaintiff to the Court complex and he reached at 1:30 PM, when Govind Ram and Tek Chand were also present. The plaintiff apprised them of the agreement Ext. PA and asked them that he is ready to make balance payment to which Govind Ram and Tek Chand said that they would consider it. He has denied the suggestion in the cross-examination that Radha Devi was unable to move due to illness. He also denied that Radha Devi was not present at Mandi on 4.7.1993. He also denied the suggestion that Radha Devi has not executed agreement Ext. PA. 10. PW-3 Pushap Raj deposed that Ext. PA was prepared by Radha Devi and plaintiff in his presence. It was scribed by Tara Chand and other witnesses were Mohinder Pal and Hem Raj. The contents were read over and Radha Devi after considering it correct put her signatures at place Ext. PA/1. The plaintiff gave earnest money of Rs. 5500/-. 11. PW-4 Tara Chand deposed that agreement Ext. PA was scribed by him at the instance of Radha Devi and the plaintiff. Radha Devi agreed to sell one house and 1/3rd portion of room to plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- and 3,000/- and had received Rs. 5500/- as earnest money. The plaintiff gave earnest money of Rs. 5500/-. 11. PW-4 Tara Chand deposed that agreement Ext. PA was scribed by him at the instance of Radha Devi and the plaintiff. Radha Devi agreed to sell one house and 1/3rd portion of room to plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- and 3,000/- and had received Rs. 5500/- as earnest money. The contents were read over to the parties and witnesses thereafter after considering them to be true put their signatures. Radha Devi put her signature at place Ext. PA/1. Thereafter, plaintiff and their witnesses also put their signatures and at last he put his signatures. Radha Devi told that she will execute the sale deed within a period of one year but stated that this condition may not be incorporated in the agreement for the relationship between plaintiff and Radha Devi. Radha Devi was in good health. 12. DW-1 Kehar Singh deposed that he on the orders of District Revenue Officer, Sadar, alongwith Kanungo went to Samkhetar Mohalla, Mandi and carried out the demarcation of land. He prepared tatima Ext. DW- 1/A. He proved jamabandi Ext. DW-1/A and DW-1/C. In his cross-examination, he admitted that except Govind Ram, no other person was called by Kanungo for demarcation. He also admitted that the old house with Kh. No. 1313 was in the name of Radha Devi. 13. DW-2 Govind Ram deposed that he has purchased the suit land from the General Power of Attorney of defendants No. 2 to 6, Sh. Tek Chand through registered sale deed dated 28.10.1994. He has purchased house comprising two rooms, latrine, bathroom and one another room and another three rooms with possession. The plaintiff has not shown agreement to him in September, 1994. Radha Devi was unable to walk due to her illness. He proved copy of sale deed Ext. PB. 14. DW-3 Om Prakash deposed that the name of his mother was Radha Devi. She died on 28.8.1993. She had her house at Samkhetar and after her death, the property at Samkhetar came to him and his brothers and sisters, regarding which, they have given General Power of Attorney to their father Tek Chand. His father sold suit property to Govind Ram for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith possession through sale deed dated 28.10.1994. His mother had never sold suit property to plaintiff. His mother has retired as teacher. His father sold suit property to Govind Ram for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith possession through sale deed dated 28.10.1994. His mother had never sold suit property to plaintiff. His mother has retired as teacher. She was not present at Mandi on 4.7.1993 and was away to Manali on 2.7.1993. She was unable to move. 15. DW-4 Tek Chand deposed that defendants No. 2 to 6 were his sons and daughters. Radha Devi was his wife. She was suffering from blood pressure and diabetes for many years and died on 28.8.1993. His sons and daughters inherited the property of his wife at Samkhetar. Radha Devi had given Power of Attorney about this property and thereafter his sons and daughters had given Power of Attorney vide Ext. DW-4/A. He sold the suit property to Govind Ram, defendant on 28.10.1994 for consideration of Rs. 50,000/- through sale deed Ext. PB. His wife had not executed agreement Ext. PA dated 4.7.1993 and had not received Rs. 5500/- as earnest money. He denied the suggestion that after the death of Radha Devi, agreement was shown to him and and his sons and daughters by the plaintiff, asking them to receive the balance amount and execute the sale deed. 16. DW-5 Krishan Swarup deposed that on 2.7.1993, Radha Devi and her husband were with him at Manali and came back on 6.7.1993 to Mandi. Radha Devi was not treated from any doctor at Manali. 17. DW-6 Hutashan Shastri deposed that he knew Radha Devi and Mohinder Pal. 18. DW-7 Ram Krishan deposed that he remained witness to sale deed dated 28.10.1994 vide which Tek Chand sold suit property to Govind Ram for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. 19. It is not in dispute that Radha Devi owned the property. The plaintiff had duly proved Ext. PA dated 4.7.1993. Ext. PA has been attested by the marginal witnesses as well as by the scribe. According to these witnesses, the contents of the agreement were read over and explained to the parties and thereafter after admitting the contents of the same to be true and correct, they have put their signatures. The plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 5500/- as earnest money to Radha Devi. He had also served notices upon the defendants not to enter into agreement of the same suit land, however, despite that the land was sold vide Ext. The plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 5500/- as earnest money to Radha Devi. He had also served notices upon the defendants not to enter into agreement of the same suit land, however, despite that the land was sold vide Ext. PB by General Power of Attorney of defendants No. 2 to 6 on 28.10.1994 to defendant Govind Ram. 20. Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate, has vehemently argued that Radha Devi was ill. However, no medical prescription has been produced on record. DW-5 Krishan Swarup deposed that on 2.7.1993, Radha Devi and her husband were with him at Manali and came back on 6.7.1993 to Mandi. Radha Devi was not got treated from any doctor at Manali. The plaintiff was already ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. According to Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate, defendant No. 1 was bonafide purchaser of the suit land. He also argued that PW-3 could not identify Radha Devi on the basis of photograph. 21. PW-1 H.K. Sharma, has deposed that Radha Devi had come to his office. Witness PW-2 Mohinder Pal and PW-3 Pushap Raj and Hem Raj were called on the spot. It was scribed by PW-4 Tara Chand. Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, has argued that signatures on Ext. PA were doubtful but the defendants have never moved an application before the trial Court for comparing the signatures of Radha Devi on Ext. PA. Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, has also argued that the notices were received by his clients after the execution of sale deed on 28.10.1994. However, the fact of the matter is that the plaintiff in the presence of PW-2 Mohinder Pal has called the defendants in the Court premises and apprised about the agreement Ext. PA dated 4.7.1993. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate that the plaintiff has obtained signatures on the blank papers from Radha Devi. 22. Now, as far as non-identification of photograph of PW-3 Pushap Raj is concerned, PW-1 H.K. Sharma, in his statement has deposed that he has brought his own witnesses and Radha Devi had brought her own witnesses. Merely that the agreement was scribed on simple paper, other than the judicial/bond paper, it cannot be said that it was not executed by Radha Devi. The plaintiff was relative of Radha Devi and according to him, she wanted to sell the property to her own relations. 23. Merely that the agreement was scribed on simple paper, other than the judicial/bond paper, it cannot be said that it was not executed by Radha Devi. The plaintiff was relative of Radha Devi and according to him, she wanted to sell the property to her own relations. 23. It has come in the statement of DW-1 Kehar Singh that except Govind Ram, no other person was called by Kanungo for demarcation on the spot. All the interested parties ought to have been called on the spot for demarcation of the property. The Courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, including notice Ext. PC, Tatima Ext. DW-1/A and DW-1/B. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 24. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.