JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The Plaintiff''s suit for rendition of a decree, for, specific performance of agreement executed, on 18.11.1993, inter se him and the defendant, was dismissed, by the learned trial Court, and, in an appeal preferred therefrom by the aggrieved plaintiff, before, the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, and, consequently decreed the plaintiff''s suit. Now the defendant is aggrieved therefrom, hence, has motioned this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had instituted a suit for specific performance of the agreement of 18.11.1993, executed by the defendant, in his favour qua the land depicted therein. The plaintiff averred that defendant had approached him on 18.11.1993 and demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from him for the marriage of his son. IN lieu of this sum of Rs. 20,000/-, he had agreed to sell the suit land to him and executed the agreement to sell in his favour qua the suit land. It is averred that the entire sale consideration of Rs. 20,000/- was paid to the defendant on the same day and the possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiff by the defendant on that very day. It was also agreed that in case the defendant failed to, within the stipulated period, execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, he shall pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the defendant. It is averred that despite many requests made by the plaintiff to the defendant to get the sale deed executed, but all his attempts failed and on the contrary, the defendant got a case registered against him in the Police Station, Jawali. It is averred that a legal notice of 6.10.2000, was served upon the defendant which has been received by him on 18.10.2000, but he had not replied the same. Hence, he has filed the instant suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections, inter alia maintainability, locus standi, cause of action etc. He averred that the suit of the plaintiff is time barred and that he had never executed any agreement to sell qua the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections, inter alia maintainability, locus standi, cause of action etc. He averred that the suit of the plaintiff is time barred and that he had never executed any agreement to sell qua the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. He has denied all the averments as cast in the plaint by the defendant, hence, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the parties entered into an agreement to sell the suit land on 18.11.1993? OPP 2. Whether the defendant after getting consideration amount delivered the possession of the land in suit to the plaintiff? OPP. 3. Whether the defendant agreed to execute the sale deed in the year 2001 and in case of default, to pay Rs. 80,000/- to the plaintiff? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to sue? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is not within time? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from the Court? OPD. 9. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct? OPD. 10. Whether the suit deserves dismissal with special cost? OPD. 11. Whether the alleged agreement is a result of fraud and misrepresentation? OPD. 12. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, hence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the plaintiff/respondent herein, before, the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, and, reversed the findings recorded, by the learned trial Court. 6. Now the defendant/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein he assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant/appellant, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether Ex.P-1 alleged agreement, for sale is not legal and valid document and the same was not executed by the appellant? 2. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant/appellant, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether Ex.P-1 alleged agreement, for sale is not legal and valid document and the same was not executed by the appellant? 2. Whether Ex.P-1 is not enforceable under the law in view of the Bar against the alienation of land in suit as granted to the appellant by way of Nautor grant as contained under Section 9 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Land (Vesting and Utilization Scheme), 1973, whereby the land sanctioned under this scheme cannot be alienated for period of 20 years? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 7. The apposite agreement to sell is borne in Ex. P-1. The Learned counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant has contended with much vigour before this Court (i) that the learned First Appellate Court has not borne in mind, the factum of the defendant being blind, (ii) nor it has borne in mind the factum, of, apt evidence making palpable disclosure(s), of, the defendant/appellant never executing it, (iii) thereupon, he contends that the findings rendered, vis-a-vis, execution of Ex.P-1 by the defendant, warranting interference by this Court. The afore referred submission addressed before this Court, by the counsel for the defendant/appellant, is in its entirety, rather repelled by testification rendered by, the, scribe, of, ExP-1, (iv) one Lalit Mohan Sharma, who while testifying as PW-4, has during the course of his examination-in-chief, hence, made echoings qua Ex.P-1 being scribed by him, on 18.11.1993, especially at the conjoint behest, of, the defendant and of the plaintiff, and, after his making the apt scribings, his reading, and, explaining, the contents thereof, to the defendant, who, is testified by him, to, in his presence hence make his thumb impression thereon. He has also testified that upon his scribing the apt recitals, the plaintiff also in his presence, hence, appending his signatures thereon. Thereafter, he proceeds, to, testify qua the agreement being witnessed by on Bhag Singh, and, by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Harsar, both of whom also are testified, to, append their respective signatures thereon. He has also testified that upon his scribing the apt recitals, the plaintiff also in his presence, hence, appending his signatures thereon. Thereafter, he proceeds, to, testify qua the agreement being witnessed by on Bhag Singh, and, by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Harsar, both of whom also are testified, to, append their respective signatures thereon. In addition, he has made further articulations, in his examination-in-chief qua at the time of completion, of execution of Ex.P- 1, the plaintiff liquidating, in their presence, the apt sale consideration, borne in a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, to the defendant. The afore rendered testification(s), by the scribe of Ex.P-1, and, as borne in his examination-in-chief, was, concerted to be repulsed, of, their efficacy, hence, holding him to an exacting crossexamination, by the counsel for the defendant, yet in course thereof, rather suggestions were meted to PW-4, qua at the time of execution of Ex.P-1 by the defendant, the latter being completely blind, and, his being incapacitated to read the contents of Ex.P-1, yet, disaffirmative answers thereto, rather emanated from PW-4. The effect of hence disaffirmative answers being meted by PW-4, to the afore referred suggestion, put to him by the counsel, for the defendant, while his being subjected to cross-examination, does erode, the espousal of the counsel, for the defendant qua the latter at the time of execution Ex. P-1, being completely blind, and, hence, being disabled to read the contents of Ex. P-1. Predominantly, also, in case the apt disaffirmative answers, as, meted by PW-4, to the afore referred suggestion, put to him by the counsel for the defendant, rather were not amenable to meteing(s), of any credence thereto, yet, it was open to the defendant, to lead medical evidence qua, his, at the time of execution, of Ex.P-1, rather being blind, thereupon, his being unable to read the contents of Ex.P- 1. The non adduction of aforesaid apt evidence, does constrain an inference, of, the disaffirmative answers meted by PW-4, to the afore referred suggestions, put to him by the counsel, for, the defendant, rather enjoying an aura of credibility, obviously, hence the espousal, reared by the counsel for the defendant, of the latter being totally blind at the relevant stage, rather being unmeritworthy. 8. 8. Even otherwise, the factum of Ex.P-1 being not executed by the defendant also lacks vigour, (i) given PW-4, its scribe and also marginal witnesses thereof, one Raja Ram, and, one Bhag Singh, who respectively testified, as PW-2 and PW-3, both in their respective examinations-in-chief, rather lending corroboration, to the deposition of PW-4, wherein, he has with aplomb, rendered apt echoing qua the defendant, after, his scribing the apt recitals, rather appending, his thumb impression(s) thereon, besides in their respectively rendered testifications, they also rendered echoings, for, hence lending, the, utmost corroboration, vis-a-vis, the testification of PW-4, qua thereafter both, in the presence of PW-4, and, in the presence of its executants, rather hence appending their signatures thereon, (ii) also besides with PW-2, PW-3 and PW4, all with unanimity making bespeakings, qua, the appending(s), of, the apt thumb impressions upon Ex.P-1, being preceded by the recitals, of Ex.P-1 being read over and explained by its scribe, to the defendant, (iii) thereupon, Ex.P-1 is to be concluded to proven to be volitionally executed by the defendant. An immense fortification to the aforesaid inference, is, garnered by the factum, of the learned counsel for the defendant, while cross-examining PW-4, in display of Ex.P-1 not being engendered by any pure volitional act of the defendant, rather proceeding to put suggestion qua the defendant being awakened qua the recitals, occurring in Ex.p-1, appertaining to his executing a lease deed, with the plaintiff. The effect(s), of, meteing of afore suggestion rather, is, in stark dis-concurrence, with, the pleadings reared by the defendant, in his written statement besides with the appending of thumb impression(s), by the defendant on Ex.P-1, standing not contended to be upon a blank paper, also renders all the aforesaid suggestions to be stand meted surmissaly, and, theirs being wholly nugatory, (iv) rather when the volitional execution of Ex.P-1, by the defendant, stands testified in tandem by PW-2, PW-3, and, by PW-4, (v) and, with their testifications in respect thereof, as, occurring in their respective examinations-in-chief, rather remaining apparently unshattered, during, the course of their respective scathing cross-examinations, (vi) thereupon, this Court concludes, qua, the plaintiff proving by adducing cogent proof, qua Ex.P-1 being voluntarily executed by the defendant, besides the plaintiff also efficaciously proves qua at the time contemporaneous, to, the defendant voluntarily executing Ex.P-1, his receiving the apt sale consideration borne in a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, and, also the plaintiff proving, that, in contemporaneity thereto, the apt possession, of the suit property being delivered, to him by the defendant. 9. Even though, the afore rendered testification, brings forth evidence, in, display of satiation being meted vis-a-vis, the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, (a) yet the counsel for the defendant, has contended with vigour, that, with at the time contemporaneous to the execution of Ex.P-1, there being in existence, and, in force , an apt statutory bar embodied, in, a notification, bearing No. Rev.02-F/7-2/77-111 of 2.12.1991, whereunder, the time against any valid apt alienation being made by the grantee, standing extended, from, hitherto 10 years to 20 years, (b) hence, the effects of all the aforesaid depositions, rather getting effaced, hence, it was inapt for the learned Appellate Court, to decree the plaintiff''s suit. However, the afore addressed submission does not carry any tenacity nor it carries any merit, (c) given the apt time for determining, qua, the execution of Ex.P-1, rather militating against the statutory bar, hence being reckonable, from, the year whereat the grant was made, (d) thereupon with the apt grant of the suit land to the defendant, standing, admittedly made on 16.07.1980, and, also when evidently, thereat, a period of 10 years, stood, prescribed wherewith he stood barred to validly alienate the suit property, vis-a-vis, the apt alienee. Obviously, when the apt computation, qua, the attraction, of, the apt bar, is, reckonable, from, the time of grant of the suit land, vis-a-vis, the defendant/allottee, and, when evidently, thereat, the apt statutory bar remained, alive within 10 years therefrom, (e) thereupon, when apparently after expiry of 10 years, Ex.P-1, stood executed, (f) thereupon, its execution does not attract, the apt statutory bar nor hence the execution of Ex.P-1 can be concluded to be beyond, the domain of law. However, after expiry, of, the apt statutory period of 10 years, the government, under, a notification bearing Rev.02-F/7-2/77-111 of 2.12.1991, rather extended the period, of, the apt statutory bar, from, the hitherto 10 years to 20 years, (g) therefrom, the counsel for the defendant contends, qua, the execution of Ex.P-1 hence attracting the rigor, of, the statutory bar, (h) and, hence any right vesting in the plaintiff under Ex.P-1, being defeasable, as well as rather conferring void rights/ entitlements, upon him, vis-a-vis the suit land. However, the aforesaid submission, cannot be accepted by this Court, (i) given a reading of the notification of 1991, not making any disclosure qua the apt barring period, as, prescribed therein rather holding retrospective effect, nor it makes any disclosure, appertaining qua the grant(s) made even in the year 1990, being encapsulated therein, (j) whereas , express foisting, of, retrospectivity in the notification of 1991, was imperative, for giving succor to the afore referred submission made by the counsel for the defendant, qua hence the elongated statutory period, of, the apt bar created therein, also applying, visa-vis, the grants made, earlier to the issuance, of, the subsequent notification. Reiteratedly, the absence of explicit/express bespeakings therein, pointedly, vis-a-vis, meteings, of, retrospectivity thereto, (k) rather constrains this Court, to conclude qua the notification of 2.12.1991, holding prospectivity, and, it not appertaining to the grant, of the suit land, vis-a-vis the defendant, grant whereof rather occurred in the year 1980, whereat, the apposite reckonable apt statutory bar, was tramelled upto a period of 10 years, (i) hence, while making the apt computation therefrom, and, when the execution of Ex.P-1, rather has evidently occurred, after, the expiry, of, the apt interdicting period, hence, the execution of Ex.P-1, cannot be construed, to be suffering from any invalidity. 10. However, at the stage, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant, has continued to contend with vigour, that it was inappropriate for the learned First Appellate Court, to allude to the notification of 2.12.1991, besides contends that any conclusions, drawn, therefrom, pointedly, qua its not holding any retrospective effect, also likewise holding no merit, (i) given, the apt notification, being neither in accordance with law either tendered into evidence nor it being exhibited. However, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted by this Court, given the apt notification rather comprising, an, imperative fact, in respect whereof, this Court can proceed to take judicial notice. Since the aforesaid inference drawn by this Court, is, squarely anvilled, upon, section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act, Provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "56. However, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted by this Court, given the apt notification rather comprising, an, imperative fact, in respect whereof, this Court can proceed to take judicial notice. Since the aforesaid inference drawn by this Court, is, squarely anvilled, upon, section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act, Provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "56. Fact judicially noticeable need not be proved.-No fact of which the Court will take judicial notice need to be proved." (ii) AND, when it stands statutorily expostulated therein, qua any fact, in respect whereof, the, Courts can take judicial notice, rather not enjoining any Court or the litigant, to, preceding any apt reliance being placed, qua it, hence necessarily rather being proven in accordance, with law, (iii) thereupon, even if, the apt notification stands not proven in accordance with law, yet with its comprising a fact, in respect whereof this Court, within, the ambit of section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act, can take judicial notice, thereupon, dehors its not standing proven in accordance with law, this court yet assumes jurisdiction, to, both read it, and, make apt construction, upon, its inapplicability vis-a-vis the suit land. 11. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court being based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. 12. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 50-G/-5, is affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.