JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on point of admission of this second appeal as well as on framing of substantial question of law. In Original Suit No. 894/2002 (Chandrabali v. Smt. Srimani Verma) plaint case in brief was that defendant is owner of disputed property, who had executed registered deed of agreement of sell dated 04.07.2001 for sale of his property in favour of plaintiff for consideration of Rs.60,000/-, and accepted Rs.35,000/- as advance consideration. The plaintiff had been ready and willingly to perform his part of contract was ready to pay the remaining amount of sale consideration and get the sale-deed executed in his favour. But the defendant had avoided execution of sale deed. So the plaintiff had sent legal notice to defendant for execution of sale-deed after receiving remaining sale consideration. When the defendant had not executed sale-deed then plaintiff had filed suit for specific performance of said contract. 2. In original suit the defendant had filed written-statement by which vague denial of pleadings of plaint were made. Most of the paragraphs of plaint were not admitted, without any specific averment; and it was further pleaded in w.s. that defendants had not received any advance consideration of Rs.35,000/- and plaintiff had never asked the him to execute the sale-deed. Plaintiff's notice was replied by defendant's notice. Plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed. 3. In original suite issues were framed and evidences of the parties were adduced; and thereafter Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaushambi, had decreed the suit for the relief of specific performance of contract by its judgment dated 29.10.2010. In this judgment the trial court had given specific finding to the effect that plaintiff had proved its case. He has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and had given notice to defendant for receiving remaining consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and executing the sale-deed. The trial court had given finding that plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. On basis of this findings the trial court had decreed the original suit for the relief claimed. 4. Civil appeal No. 1/2011 (Smt. Srimani Verma v. Chandrabali) was preferred by defendant against the judgment of trial court. Additional District Judge, Court No.-4, Kaushambi has afforded opportunity of hearing to the parties and passed judgment dated 27.11.2015, by which said first appeal was dismissed. 4. Civil appeal No. 1/2011 (Smt. Srimani Verma v. Chandrabali) was preferred by defendant against the judgment of trial court. Additional District Judge, Court No.-4, Kaushambi has afforded opportunity of hearing to the parties and passed judgment dated 27.11.2015, by which said first appeal was dismissed. In this judgment, the lower appellate court had given finding that it is proved that defendant-appellant had received consideration of Rs. 35,000/- and had not returned said amount. It was held that the plaintiff had proved the plaint case, therefore the judgment dated 29.110.2010 of trial court is confirmed and appeal is dismissed. 5. Against the judgment of trial court as well as first appellate court, present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant of the original suit. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that although there is pleading in plaint regarding readiness and willingness to plaintiff to perform his part of contract but there is no evidences for it. He further contended that readiness and willingness of plaintiff to get the sale-deed executed was not proved; and there is no proof that plaintiff had actually visited the Sub-Registrar Office for getting the sale-deed executed as mentioned by him in his notice sent before institution of suit. He contended that judgment of lower courts are erroneous on findings of facts, therefore, the appeal should be admitted for being allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant and argued that all points, including the readiness and willingness of plaintiff-respondent to perform his part of contact, had been discussed and properly decided by lower appellate court, the findings of which is against the appellant and in favour of respondent. He further contended that before institution of original suit notice was sent by plaintiff-respondent to defendant-appellant and there is no pleading of defendant that such notice was not received by him. On the contrary it was written in w.s. that reply of plaintiff's notice was given by defendant. He further contended that the points, which were raised in first appeal under Order-41 Rule-2 CPC, were decided by the lower appellate court, and its findings are concurrent with that of trial court. He further contended that the pleadings of plaint were not specifically denied by defendant through its written-statement, which amounts to admission of plaint case. He further contended that the points, which were raised in first appeal under Order-41 Rule-2 CPC, were decided by the lower appellate court, and its findings are concurrent with that of trial court. He further contended that the pleadings of plaint were not specifically denied by defendant through its written-statement, which amounts to admission of plaint case. He further contended that in light of concurrent findings of two courts below, this appeal should not be admitted. 8. A perusal of the record reveals that this contention of learned counsel for the appellant is not incorrect that pleadings of pleadings of plaint were not specifically denied. In paragraph-1 of the plaint, it is specifically written that defendant had willingly executed registered agreement to sell dated 04.07.2001 without any undue influence for sale of her property in question of plot no. 454, area 66.36 square meter, in favour of plaintiff. This plaint's averment was denied by first paragraph of written statement, but no further pleadings is there in written-statement to the effect that no such registered deed of agreement to sale was ever executed or that defendant had not willingly executed such agreement registered deed. On the contrary in paragraph-12 of the written-statement, it is mentioned that in agreement in question amount of Rs.35,000/- is wrongly written; which implies that defendant is admitting the execution of deed of registered agreement to sale. In paragraph-13 of written-statement it is mentioned that plaintiff had not asked defendant for execution of sale-deed in light of said agreement. This also implies that defendant is admitting the execution of agreement mentioned in plaint, and is only denying that plaintiff have ever asked her to execute the sale-deed. Order-VIII, Rule 3, 4, and 5 of CPC deals with the denial of plaint's averment in written-statement. Rule-3 provides that every denial must be specific and not the general in nature. Rule-5 provides that if the allegation of facts in plaint are not denied specifically or by necessary implication then such pleadings shall be taken taken to be admitted. Rule-4 provides that evasive denial shall not be acknowledged as sufficient denial. In light of these provisions, a perusal of plaint and the written-statement filed before the trial court, shows that plaint's averments were never specifically denied. There was general, insufficient and evasive denial of plaint case, which has effect of admission of plaint case. 9. Rule-4 provides that evasive denial shall not be acknowledged as sufficient denial. In light of these provisions, a perusal of plaint and the written-statement filed before the trial court, shows that plaint's averments were never specifically denied. There was general, insufficient and evasive denial of plaint case, which has effect of admission of plaint case. 9. On one hand learned counsel for the appellant challenged the finding of lower courts regarding the service of notice sent by plaintiff to defendant for execution of sale-deed, but on another hand such notice is admitted in plaint when defendant had stated that she had given written reply to such notice. There is averment of non-service of notice sent by plaintiff, before the institution of suit, to defendant was pleaded in w.s. Therefore, such plea cannot be raised by appellant directly in second appeal. Apart from it, the lower appellate court had discussed this point also and given specific finding that service notice sent by plaintiff to defendant has been proved. 10. There has been concurrent finding of fact of two courts below that plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of contract in question, and was ready to pay remaining consideration of Rs. 25,000/- in get the sale-deed executed. Such plaint case was not specially denied. Apart from it there is concurrent finding of two lower courts in this regard in favour of plaintiff-respondent and against defendant-appellant, which are based on proper appreciation of evidences available on records. Such findings are apparently without any infirmity or perversity. 11. The disputes between the parties in this case was as to whether the registered agreement of sale dated 04.07.2010 was executed between the parties as pleaded in the plaint, and whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of said contract. These are questions of fact and not a question of law. Such questions of facts can be decided on the basis of evidences, as has been done by the lower courts. The findings given by the lower courts apparently are correct and acceptable. Such findings cannot be interfered in second appeal by re-appreciation of evidences. 12. These are questions of fact and not a question of law. Such questions of facts can be decided on the basis of evidences, as has been done by the lower courts. The findings given by the lower courts apparently are correct and acceptable. Such findings cannot be interfered in second appeal by re-appreciation of evidences. 12. On examination of the reasoning recorded by the trial court, which are affirmed by the learned first appellate court in first appeal, I am of the view that the judgments of the two lower courts are well reasoned, and are based upon proper appreciation of the entire evidences on record. No perversity or infirmity is found in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the trial court that has been affirmed by the first appellate court to warrant interference in this appeal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law was involved in the case before this Court. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant can be sustained. 13. In view of the above, this Court finds that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Therefore the second appeal is dismissed. `