JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant/plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 63/2005 dated 25.03.2008, vide which learned appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant, upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi in Civil Suit No. 76/2003 dated 01.07.2005, whereby learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi dismissed the suit for specific performance of contract filed by the present appellant. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit to the effect that on 1st July, 1981 by way of a written agreement of sale, defendant No. 1 sold his land, i.e. 1/6th share measuring 4-15-17 bighas, comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 40/99 to 107, Kitas 93, measuring 25-15-2 bighas, situated in Mauja Galu/91, illaqua Baggi Tungal, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., as per jamabandi for the year 1975-76 alongwith house in dilapidated condition, situated in Mauza Galu/91 for a sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff. As per the plaintiff, the agreement was executed by defendant No. 1 on 01.07.1981 in the presence of witnesses and on that date, defendant No. 1 received entire sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 handed over the possession of the land as well as house to plaintiff and till the filing of the suit, plaintiff was in possession and enjoying land as well as house. It was further the case of the plaintiff that the said land being tenancy land and defendant No. 1 being non-occupancy tenant alongwith other co-sharers, as such registration of sale deed could not be carried out, however, defendant No. 1 had agreed to execute sale deed and register the land in the name of plaintiff as soon as the proprietary rights were conferred upon him and as soon as he become legally competent to effect sale deed of the land as well as the house. It was further the case of the plaintiff that on 25th May, 2003, she came to know that proprietary rights of the said land had been conferred upon defendant No. 1 vide mutation No. 152 and, as such, defendant No. 1 was competent to execute and register the sale deed in her favour. It was further the case of the plaintiff that on 25th May, 2003, she came to know that proprietary rights of the said land had been conferred upon defendant No. 1 vide mutation No. 152 and, as such, defendant No. 1 was competent to execute and register the sale deed in her favour. It was further the case of the plaintiff that she was always ready and willing to perform her terms of the contract and she verbally asked defendant No. 1 to execute the sale deed as per agreement dated 01.07.1981. Further, as per the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 initially avoided to execute and register the sale deed in her favour, so plaintiff through her counsel sent a legal notice on 06.06.2003, which was replied to by defendant No. 1 through his counsel. According to plaintiff, the reply was wrong and illegal and defendant No. 1 had wrongly and illegally refused to register the sale deed in her favour. It was further the case of the plaintiff that after the receipt of notice sent by her to defendant No. 1, he had executed a gift deed in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 of the suit land to the extent of 4-6-1 bighas of land, which gift deed was bad and illegal and in violation of the terms and conditions of agreement dated 01.07.1981. It was on these bases that the plaintiff filed the suit praying for the following reliefs: “ (a) the decree for specific performance of contract may kindly be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 be directed to execute and register the sale deed of the land in question in consonance with the agreement dated 01.07.1981 in favour of the plaintiff; (b) it be declared that the gift deed dated 19.09.2003 is wrong and illegal, null and void; (c) the defendants may kindly be restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from causing any interference in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the land in question; and (d) in the alternative, if the plaintiff is dispossessed forcibly by the defendants during the pendency of the suit and the plaintiff is found put of possession in that event, decree for possession of the land in question may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and as such the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be decreed with costs and justice be done.” 3. The claim of the plaintiff was contested by the defendants. Execution of agreement to sell dated 01.07.1981 was denied by defendant No. 1 and it was also denied by defendant No. 1 that any consideration was received by him as alleged by the plaintiff or that the possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff as alleged. As per defendant No. 1, he was an illiterate old man and simple villager and had never agreed to sell the suit land and register the same in the name of the plaintiff. It was further mentioned in the written statement that legal notice issued by the plaintiff was correctly replied by defendant No. 1 and the gift deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3, who were his grandsons, was a valid gift deed as neither defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff nor he had parted the possession of the same to the plaintiff. It was further mentioned in the written statement that as the house was jointly owned and possessed by plaintiff and other co-sharers in the year 1981, there was no question of selling the same as alleged by the plaintiff. It was further mentioned in the written statement that as the house was jointly owned and possessed by plaintiff and other co-sharers in the year 1981, there was no question of selling the same as alleged by the plaintiff. It was further mentioned in the written statement that plaintiff had no right to file a suit for specific performance and the right of the plaintiff was waived, abandoned and barred by limitation. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the defendant No. 1 through an agreement dated 01.07.1981 agreed to sell his entire 1/6th share in the suit land alongwith a house situated over the suit land for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- to plaintiff as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff who performed and still willing to perform his part of the agreement as alleged? OPP 3. If issues No. 1 and 2 are proved in affirmative whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession as alleged? OPP 5. Whether the gift deed dated 19.09.2003 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 is wrong, null and void as alleged? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP 7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 8. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 9. Relief. 5. On the basis of evidence adduced by the respective parties in support of their respective claims, the following findings were returned by learned trial Court on the issues so framed: Issue No. 1 No Issue No. 2 No Issue No. 3 No Issue No. 4 No Issue No. 5 No Issue No. 6 No Issue No. 7 Yes Issue No. 8 No Relief Suit dismissed as per operative part of judgment. 6. While dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff, it was held by the learned trial Court that remedy of specific performance was an equitable remedy and under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, Court was not bound to grant the relief just because there was an agreement to sell. It was further held by the learned trial Court that it stood proved from records that defendant No. 1 was illiterate person and as per him, contents of agreement Ex. It was further held by the learned trial Court that it stood proved from records that defendant No. 1 was illiterate person and as per him, contents of agreement Ex. PW1/A were never disclosed to him and his signatures were in fact obtained on the said agreement while obtaining his signatures on the sale deed Ex. PW2/A, which was executed between him and the plaintiff with respect to some other land, owned by defendant No. 1 for an amount of Rs.11,000/- . Learned trial Court further held that in these circumstances, burden was heavily on the plaintiff to prove that defendant No. 1 had put his signatures on the agreement to sell with full knowledge of the contents thereof, which the plaintiff had failed to prove on the basis of evidence led by her. Learned trial Court further held that in fact evidence proved that signatures obtained on the said agreement were obtained alongwith sale deed Ex. PW2/A, which was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff on the same day, by the Document Writer who drafted the sale deed. It was further held by the learned trial Court that according to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.10,000/- which was the sale consideration of the agreement to sell was paid to defendant No. 1 by her in the presence of Jatia Ram and Khem Singh. Learned trial Court held that Khem Singh in his statement has specifically denied that no money was paid to defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff, whereas PW-8 Jatia Ram/J.R. Thakur in his statement had no where stated that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to Deo by the plaintiff in his presence. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that husband of the plaintiff Kaul Ram, who entered the witness box as PW-6 deposed that the sale consideration was paid to defendant No. 1 by his wife before the execution of sale deed in presence of Chet Ram, Khem Singh and Jatia Ram Thakur. On these bases, it was held by the learned trial Court that there was no evidence on record to show that Rs.10,000/- was in fact paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1, as mentioned in Ex. On these bases, it was held by the learned trial Court that there was no evidence on record to show that Rs.10,000/- was in fact paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1, as mentioned in Ex. PW1/A. Learned trial Court also held that in ordinary course of business, whenever an agreement to sell is executed, a small part of the total amount is paid and major part of the consideration is paid at the time of registration of the sale deed and thus, execution of agreement Ex. PW1/A suffered from artificiality. On these bases, it was held by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff had failed to prove on record that defendant No. 1 had executed a legal and valid agreement Ex. PW1/A in favour of the plaintiff and had agreed to sell his entire 1/6th share to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.10,000/-, which had been paid to him at the time of execution of agreement to sell. Learned trial Court also held that there was no evidence on record to prove that defendant No. 1 put his signatures on the agreement with full knowledge of the same. Learned trial Court further held that the plaintiff had also failed to prove on record that possession of the suit land was delivered to her by defendant No. 1 at the time of execution of the sale deed. It was also held by the learned trial Court that as proprietary rights were conferred upon defendant No. 1 through mutation No. 152 dated 18.04.1991 and as per plaintiff, she came to know about this fact on 25.05.2003, however, plaintiff led no evidence to substantiate as to how she came to know about mutation only on 25.05.2003. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that it was admitted by the plaintiff and her witnesses that the factum of agreement was concealed from every one including defendant for 22 years and even copy of agreement was not given to defendant No. 1 and the agreement was only shown to him by her husband about two years before the filing of the suit. On these bases, it was also held by the learned trial Court that the suit was also barred by limitation. 7. On these bases, it was also held by the learned trial Court that the suit was also barred by limitation. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 25.03.2008. While dismissing the appeal so filed by the plaintiff, it was held by the learned appellate Court that perusal of agreement Ex. PW1/A demonstrated that the same was signed by Chet Ram with different pen and ink, whereas plaintiff Bhawani Devi had signed the same with different pen and ink and attesting witness Khem Singh had signed the agreement with same pen with which the agreement was inscribed. It was held by the learned appellate Court that it was apparent that signatures of the attesting witnesses on agreement were procured at different time with different pen and ink, which rendered the execution of the agreement to be highly doubtful. It was further held by the learned appellate Court that PW-2, D.N. Sharma, who was working as Document Writer had stated that agreement Ex. PW1/A was scribed by him as per the instructions of plaintiff Bhawani Devi and Deo, however, name and address of PW-2, D.N. Sharma was not written on Ex. PW1/A. Learned appellate Court held that being a Document Writer, PW-2 under Rules was required to maintain a register, but he neither entered the agreement in his register nor he had signed the same. As per learned appellate Court, this also rendered execution of the agreement to be doubtful. It was further held by the learned appellate Court that plaintiff could not prove that he had paid sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- to defendant No. 1. It was held by the learned appellate Court that as per recitals of Ex. PW1/A, sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- was already paid to defendant No. 1, whereas PW-1 had stated that sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- was paid to defendant No. 1 in presence of Khem Singh and J.R. Thakur, however, PW-6 Kaul Ram had stated that the same was paid in presence of attesting witnesses Chet Ram and Khem Singh. PW1/A, sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- was already paid to defendant No. 1, whereas PW-1 had stated that sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- was paid to defendant No. 1 in presence of Khem Singh and J.R. Thakur, however, PW-6 Kaul Ram had stated that the same was paid in presence of attesting witnesses Chet Ram and Khem Singh. Learned appellate Court further held that PW-7 Chet Ram had stated that no sale consideration was paid by plaintiff to defendant No. 1 in his presence or in the presence of other attesting witnesses nor plaintiff had brought any other document on record to substantiate that an amount of Rs.10,0000/- was paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1. On these bases, it was held by the learned appellate Court that evidence led by the plaintiff could not prove the execution of agreement Ex. PW1/A by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff nor it could be proved by the plaintiff that she had paid sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- to defendant No. 1 at the time of execution of the agreement. It was further held by the learned appellate Court that records demonstrated that plaintiff had purchased land measuring 13-9-18 bighas from defendant No. 1 for consideration of Rs.11,000/- vide sale deed Ex. PW2/A and it also stood proved that agreement Ex. PW1/A was prepared by Kaul Ram, husband of plaintiff and signatures of defendant No. 1 and attesting witnesses were obtained at the time of execution of sale deed Ex. PW2/A. Learned appellate Court further held that keeping into consideration the fact that defendant No. 1 was duly recorded as owner in possession of the suit land, he was competent to execute gift deed in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 and no evidence was led by plaintiff to prove that gift so executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 was illegal. Learned appellate Court also upheld the finding returned by the learned trial Court on the point of limitation by holding that as per the pleadings of the plaintiff, the sale deed was agreed to be executed after acquisition of proprietary rights of the suit land by defendant No. 1, which were acquired by him vide mutation No. 152 dated 18.04.1991 and hence time started from 18.04.1991, whereas plaintiff had not instituted the suit within three years form the said date. On these bases, the appeal so filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned appellate Court. 8. These judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are under challenge by way of this appeal. 9. This appeal was admitted on 26.06.2008 on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the learned Courts below mis-read and mis-construed the evidence especially the documentary evidence in coming to the conclusion that no agreement to sell has been entered into between the parties? 2. Whether the learned Courts below have wrongly come to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred? 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. 11. A perusal of Ex. PW1/A demonstrates that it is mentioned therein that in lieu of the said agreement to sell, an amount of Rs.10,000/- stood paid by plaintiff to defendant No. 1 and he has handed over the possession of the land, subject matter of the said agreement to the plaintiff. Plaintiff in Court as PW-1 has stated that she had paid Rs.10,000/- to defendant No. 1 in the presence of her lawyer Jatia Ram and Khem Singh. Khem Singh was not produced as a witness by the plaintiff. Besides this, a perusal of the agreement to sell Ex. PW1/A demonstrates that execution of the same has been witnessed by Chet Ram and Khem Singh. Jatia Ram @ J.R. Thakur has neither appended his signatures on the same as a witness nor he has identified the vendor and vendee. This fact has also been admitted in his cross-examination by Jatia Ram/J.R. Thakur, who entered the witness box as PW-8. Further, Jatia Ram has nowhere stated in his deposition in the Court that in lieu of the execution of agreement to sell Ex. PW1/A, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was in fact paid to defendant by the plaintiff in his presence. 12. Further, Jatia Ram has nowhere stated in his deposition in the Court that in lieu of the execution of agreement to sell Ex. PW1/A, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was in fact paid to defendant by the plaintiff in his presence. 12. Whereas as per the plaintiff, the sale consideration was paid by her to the defendant in the presence of Chet Ram and Jatia Ram, however, her husband who entered the witness box as PW-6 has stated that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant before the agreement to sell was scribed and this payment was made in the presence of Chet Ram, Khem Singh and Jatia Ram. Chet Ram, who entered the witness box as PW-7, however, has stated in his cross-examination that no exchange of money took place in his presence and neither the defendant had agreed in their presence that he had received the sale consideration. Thus, the concurrent finding returned against the plaintiff by both the learned Courts below that there was no evidence on record to show that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid by plaintiff to defendant No. 1, as mentioned in Ex. PW1/A, is correct finding which is duly borne out from the records of the case. 13. Besides this, it is an admitted fact that on that very day when the alleged agreement to sell Ex. PW1/A was purportedly entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, a sale deed was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant, vide which defendant had sold some other land in his ownership to the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.11,000/-. The specific stand of the defendant in the written statement was that he was an illiterate rustic person and was not aware of the contents of the document on which his signatures were obtained by the plaintiff and in fact he had not entered into any agreement to sell the land which was under his tenancy in favour of the plaintiff vide Ex. PW2/A nor he had received any sale consideration in lieu of the same. Both the learned Courts below while disbelieving the case of the plaintiff have held that plaintiff had failed to prove on record that in fact any agreement to sell was actually entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant vide Ex. PW1/A. 14. PW2/A nor he had received any sale consideration in lieu of the same. Both the learned Courts below while disbelieving the case of the plaintiff have held that plaintiff had failed to prove on record that in fact any agreement to sell was actually entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant vide Ex. PW1/A. 14. In my considered view, the findings so returned by both the learned Courts below can neither be said to be perverse nor it can be said that the findings so returned were not borne out from the records of the case. The evidence led by the plaintiff to prove her case is neither cogent nor convincing as held by both the learned Courts below. It otherwise defies logic as to why defendant would have had agreed to enter into an agreement to sell vis-à-vis land which was only under his tenancy on the terms and conditions as are contained in Ex. PW1/A. The factum of the possession of the suit land having been parted by defendant in favour of the plaintiff in lieu of Ex. PW-1/A has also not been substantiated on record by the plaintiff. The execution of Ex. PW1/A in the mode and manner in which the plaintiff wants this Court to believe is shrouded with suspicion, especially in the light of the testimony of PW-2, the Document Writer, who has incidentally stated that though he had scribed the said document, but he neither entered this agreement in his register nor he had signed the same. Further, in my considered view, as the plaintiff was not able to prove the execution of agreement to sell, the findings returned by both the learned Courts below to the effect that as defendant No. 1 was owner-in-possession of the suit land, he was competent to execute gift deed in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3, cannot be faulted with. This gift deed admittedly was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 after ownership rights were conferred upon him vide mutation No. 152 dated 18.04.1991. Besides this, despite the fact that mutation was attested in favour of defendant No. 1 on 18.04.1991, the suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2003. This gift deed admittedly was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 after ownership rights were conferred upon him vide mutation No. 152 dated 18.04.1991. Besides this, despite the fact that mutation was attested in favour of defendant No. 1 on 18.04.1991, the suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2003. Learned trial Court has categorically held that no evidence was led by the plaintiff to substantiate that she came to know about the mutation which was entered in favour of defendant No. 1 only on 25.05.2003, as stated in the plaint. Learned trial Court while deciding the issue of limitation against the plaintiff has also taken note of the fact that neither there was any copy of agreement Ex. PW1/A handed over to defendant No. 1 and in fact this agreement was brought to the notice of defendant No. 1 by the husband of plaintiff only about two years before filing of the suit. The finding returned by learned appellate Court that signatures of attesting witnesses on agreement were procured at different times, as was evident from different pen and ink used by them, which rendered the execution of the agreement to be highly doubtful is also duly borne out from the records of the case. 15. I have carefully perused the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below as well as the records of the case and in my considered view, it cannot be said that the findings returned by both the learned Courts below are either contrary to the records or are not borne out from the records of the case. There is no misreading or mis-construction of the evidence on record and the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below that in fact no agreement to sell was entered into between the parties and no payment was made by plaintiff to defendant No. 1 is duly borne out from the records of the case. 16. Similarly, the fact that the suit filed by the plaintiff being time barred is also duly borne out from the records of the case and it cannot be said that the finding returned to this effect is perverse or contrary to the records as already discussed above. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 16. Similarly, the fact that the suit filed by the plaintiff being time barred is also duly borne out from the records of the case and it cannot be said that the finding returned to this effect is perverse or contrary to the records as already discussed above. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. In view of the discussion held above, as there is no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed with costs.