JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiff''s suit, for, rendition of a decree, for specific performance of agreement of 23.2.1991, vis-a-vis the suit land, stood decreed by the learned trial Court. The defendants being aggrieved therefrom, hence instituted the instant Regular First Appeal, before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff had instituted a suit for rendition of a decree for specific performance of agreement of 23.2.1991, entered into by the plaintiff and Shri Tek Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, for the sale of land comprised in Khasra No.1125, Khata No.151 min, Khatauni No.319, measuring 0-03-84 hectares, situated at Tikka Aima, Mauza Bundle, Tehsil Palamapur, District Kangra, H.P., for a consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/-, as also for rendition of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from selling/encumbering or creating charge of any kind on the suit land. It is averred that out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid as earnest money at the time of execution of alleged agreement to sell. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the registered deed of conveyance was to be executed on or before 31.08.1992. A further sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to late Sh. Tek Chand, against proper receipt on 26.4.1991 in presence of the witness Shri Ashok Kumar. On 22.05.1991, the plaintiff paid another sum of Rs. 35,000/- to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants the receipt of the same was executed on the back of agreement of 23.2.1991. IN all the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. Shri Tek Chand died after brief illness, somewhere in the month of June, 1991. After the death of Tek Chand, the defendants have inherited the suit land along with other lands of deceased and the same were mutated in their favour. After the death of Tek Chand, the plaintiff approached the defendants to fulfill the promise of the deceased and discharge their obligation, though they were in the know qua the execution of the agreement to sell, yet started showing their ignorance about the same. After the death of Tek Chand, the plaintiff approached the defendants to fulfill the promise of the deceased and discharge their obligation, though they were in the know qua the execution of the agreement to sell, yet started showing their ignorance about the same. When all the amicable efforts on the part of the plaintiff failed, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice through his counsel to all the defendants, but the the notices issued to defendants No.1, 3 to 5 were received with the report "refused to accept". However, defendant No.2 was served with the notice. The defendants replied the notice through their counsel, stating therein that they are not aware of the sale agreement, and, as such, not in a position to make any statement in respect of the aforesaid agreement. It is alleged that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of agreement, whereas, the defendants have refused to perform their part of the contract. Hence the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, estoppel, lacks material particulars, deceased Tek Chand had no sale-able interest in the land in question as the land in suit is ancestral property; plaintiff being non agriculturist and is not eligible to acquire the land within the State of H.P. etc. On merits, it is averred that deceased Tek Chand never entered into any agreement for sale with respect to the suit land. The plea of the plaintiff is averred to be false and wrong. It is alleged that during the deceased Tek Chand had strain relations with the father of the plaintiff. In fact, some years back the father of the plaintiff purchased some land from one Sh. Man Chand, who was the uncle of late Sh. Tek Chand. Shri Rasil Chand Katoch filed a preemptions uit, in which late Tek Chand was attorney of Rasil Chand Katoch. That suit was hotly contested by late Tek Chand. In such circumstances, it cannot be imagined that there could by any negotiations and settlement of agreement for sale of the suit land. Accordingly to the defendants, the alleged transaction of agreement for sale as set up by the plaintiff is absolutely false and wrong to the very knowledge of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, it cannot be imagined that there could by any negotiations and settlement of agreement for sale of the suit land. Accordingly to the defendants, the alleged transaction of agreement for sale as set up by the plaintiff is absolutely false and wrong to the very knowledge of the plaintiff. It is alleged that mostly Tek Chand used to remain ill and on account of weak health and mind, he was unable to know his welfare. IN fact deceased Tek Chand was not in a position to judge his good and bad. Except the suit land, the deceased had no other land, and, as such, he would have been rendered landless in the event of sale of the suit land. It is alleged that no agreement was settled or signed by the deceased as alleged by the plaintiff and alleged agreement is a forged and fabricated document. It is also denied that any amount in advance was paid by the plaintiff to deceased Tek Chand. The plaintiff and his father being the influential persons, have managed to prepare the documents on the basis of which the present suit has been filed. 4. The plaintiff filed replication, to, the written statement of the defendant(s), wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement, and, re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether an agreement of sale was duly entered between the plaintiff and late Shri Tek Chand on 23rd February, 1991 for a valuable consideration, as alleged?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the agreement for sale specifically enforced against the defendants? If so, on what terms? OPP. 3. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable and the same has not been properly filed and presented, as alleged?OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit?OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain the suit?OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit due to his acts, deeds, conduct, admission etc., as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether the plaint lacks material particulars? If so, its effect?OPD. 8. Whether deceased Tek Chand had no saleable interest in the suit property, as alleged?OPD. 9. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain the suit?OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit due to his acts, deeds, conduct, admission etc., as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether the plaint lacks material particulars? If so, its effect?OPD. 8. Whether deceased Tek Chand had no saleable interest in the suit property, as alleged?OPD. 9. Whether the agreement of sale dated 23rd February, 1991 is unilateral and arbitrary, as alleged? If so, its effect?OPD. 10. Whether the plaintiff is an agriculturist, as defined under the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act?OPP. 11. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, hence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. Now the defendants/appellants herein, being aggrieved therefrom have instituted the instant Regular First Appeal, before, this Court, wherein they assail the findings recorded, in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. 7. The acerbic contest, inter se, the plaintiff, and, the defendants, as, centered upon, the authenticity of signatures of, the, predecessor-in-interest of, the, defendants, one Tek Chand, borne on Ex.PW1/B, (a) is, squarely rested, by the FSL concerned, in pursuance, to, an order of 02.01.2018, making a clear report, qua Ex.PW1/B hence holding the authentic signatures of deceased Tek Cahnd. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/aggrieved defendants, has, contended with vigour, before this Court (b) that with Ex.PW1/B not captioning nor reciting qua it being drawn, inter se, their predecessor-in-interest, and, one Naresh Kumar Sud, rather it being unilaterally drawn by one Tek Chand, (c) thereupon, the imperative rubric rather ingraining, a, valid contract/agreement to sell, comprised, in it being, a, bilaterally executed apt contract of sale, rather being grossly amiss therein, (d) whereupon, the verdict pronounced, upon, the apposite civil suit by the learned trial Court, hence, warranting interference, by this Court. The aforesaid submission addressed before this Court has only some tentative force, (e) and, the entire strength thereof, is, eroded by the factum of the learned counsel for the appellant, remaining unaware, qua even if Ex.PW1/B, hence, omits to make, in, the opening part thereof, any disclosure qua, the, predecessor-in-interest, of the defendants, drawing it, with, one Naresh Kumar Sud, (f) yet, with, at the end of Ex.PW1/B, one Nresh Kumar Sud, signaturing it, besides with the witnesses thereto also appending their signatures thereon, (g) thereupon, reiteratedly, even if, the recitals borne, in Ex.PW1/B, prior to one Naresh Kumar Sud, at the end thereof hence appending his signatures thereon, rather omit to disclose qua its execution, hence occurring inter se one Tek Chand, and, One Naresh Kumar Sud, rather renders the apt omission(s), to stand benumbed. (h) Whereupon, it is to be concluded qua his accepting all the prior thereto apt recitals borne therein, especially when, for reasons ascribed hereinafter, he, at the time of the completed execution of Ex.PW1/B, was contemporaneously present thereat along with Tek Chand, besides witnesses thereto, were, also contemporaneously present alongwith, both aforesaid. 8. Furthermore, the learned counsel appearing, for the appellants/defendants, contends that the recitals borne in Ex.PW1/B, being not cogently proven, and, it being fictitiously drawn, (a) given all the averments borne therein, vis-a-vis, the liquidation, of, part of sale consideration, in contemporaneity thereof, being imbued with, a, pervasive fallacy. However, the aforesaid submission warrant rejection, given there existing firm evidence, vis-a-vis, complete volitional execution, by one Tek Chand, of, Ex.PW1/B. The apt evidence, is, borne in the testification rendered, on oath by one Ravinder Kumar, the Special Power of Attorney of the plaintiff, latter whereof, in his deposition has rendered echoing(s) (i) qua his being present at the time of execution of Ex.PW1/B; (ii) his testifying qua thereat, the, plaintiff, and, the deceased Tek Chand, embossing their apt signatures, on Ex.PW1/B; (iii) Ex.PW1/B being scribed, at the instance of deceased Tek Chand, by its scribe one Vikram Sarotri, whereafter, Vikram Sarotri, the scribe of Ex.PW1/B reading over, and, explaining the contents thereof, to its executant one Tek Chand, who after admitting them, to be correct, also appending his signatures thereon, in the presence of witnesses, and, a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, out of the apt total sale consideration, and, comprising the apt earnest money, being handedover to Tek Chand, by the plaintiff, especially in the presence of the apt witnesses. (iv) He has also rendered, a valid explication, vis-a-vis, the name of one Santosh Kumar s/o Tek Chand, being initially scribed therein as a witness, vis-a-vis, Ex.PW1/B, and, thereafter, its being scored off, (v) explication whereof comprise(s) in the factum of deceased Tek Chand, making an intimation that given the pre-occupation, of Santosh Kumar with his job, his hence being disabled to record thereat his presence, for his hence appending his signatures, upon, Ex.PW1/B, as a witness thereto. (vi) He further deposes that the name of Santosh Kumar, being replaced, by witness Ashok Kumar. He has proven the apt receipt, Ex.PW1/C, scribed by one Vikram Sarotari, and, as signatured by deceased Tek Chand, in the presence of one Ashok Kumar, a marginal witness thereto. (vii) The receipt borne in Ex.PW3/A, scribing therein, the, factum, of, apt tendering of a further sum of Rs. 35,000/- also stands proven by him, to stand signatured by Tek Chand, in, the presence of a witness thereto, one Ashok Kumar. (viii) He makes further disclosures qua the reason prevailing, upon, deceased Tek Chand to make Ex.PW1/B, being spurred, from, his requiring money for solemnising, the, marriage of his son and daughter. The marginal witness thereto PW-3 Ashok kumar, has, in absolute concurrence, vis-a-vis, the testification of PW1, also made echoings, in his deposition, as, recorded on oath. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion qua Ex.PW1/B, being fabricated, and, it being prepared in connivance, with, the apt petitioner writer. PW-5, is the son of deceased scribe, one Vikram Sarotri, who has proven the signatures of his father, borne on Ex.PW1/B. The other marginal witness to Ex.PW1/B, has, in tandem with the testifications rendered, by the afore PWs hence rendered therein echoings, rather bearing concurrence therewith, and, also all the afore Pws, during, the course of their respective inexorable cross-examination, remained unshattered, hence, solemnity is enjoined to be imputed, vis-a-vis, their respectively rendered testifications. 9. 9. The effect, of, the aforesaid oral testifications rendered by the apt signatories to Ex.PW1/B, when stands construed, in, entwinement with the factum, of, the report of the FSL concerned, report whereof stood submitted before this Court, in pursuance, to, orders rendered, on 02.01.2018, by this Court, rather embodying therein, a, firm opinion qua the purported disputed signatures, of deceased Tek Chand, borne in Ex.PW1/B, rather being authentic, is qua (a) the plaintiff poving the valid and due execution of Ex.PW1/B; (b) even if the suit property, is ancestral coparcenary property, yet with the deceased Tek Chand, executing a contract of sale, vis-a-vis, a minimal area of one Kanal, and, with afore area being much lesser than his share, in the undivided ancestral coparcenary property, (c) besides when the plaintiff''s evidence, underscores, the factum of deceased Tek Chand, rather for proven legal necessity, for his meteing, the, expenses, of, solemnising, the, marriages of his son, and, daughter, hence, proceeding to execute PW1/B, (d) and, when even the affirmative evidence adduced qua therewith, by the plaintiff, is, acquiesced DW-3, thereupon the factum, of, the suit property being ancestral coparcenary property, and, also the factum of the purported incapacity, of, one Tek Chand to execute Ex.PW1/B, is, rendered inconsequential, (d) conspicuously when the apt capacitation stood bestowed, upon, deceased Tek Chand, upon, the apt proven legal necessity aforesaid. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants, has contented before this Court, that with the plaintiff one Naresh Kumar Sud, not stepping into the witness box, and, with his special power of attorney rendering, a, testification, in proof of the averments borne in the plaint, whereas, the stepping, into the witness box, of, the plaintiff was imperative, (a) thereupon, the averments borne in the plaint, remaining unproven, and, concomitantly the testification, of, the special power of attorney of the plaintiff, rather being discardable. However, the aforesaid submission would hold vigour (b) only when it stood further proven, that the special power of attorney of the plaintiff, hence, not being acquainted, with the facts of the case, whereas, with the plaintiffs'' evidence, as, borne in the uneroded testifications, of the special power of attorney of the plaintiff, one Ravinder Kumar, PW-3, and, of, PW-5 and PW-6, (c) rather embodies vivid articulations, vis-a-vis, at the time contemporaneous, to the execution of Ex.PW1/B, the special power of attorney of the plaintiff, one Ravinder Kumar, rather being available thereat, (d) thereupon, obviously with his holding the closest acquaintance, vis-a-vis, the recitals borne therein, thereupon, the omission, of, the plaintiff to step into the witness box for his hence proving, the averments borne in the plaint, is, obviously subsumed, significantly, by the factum, of, his special power of attorney, rather proving the averments borne therein, especially reiteratedly, when in respect thereof, he evidently, held the apt personal knowledge, and, the closest apt acquaintance. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved appellants, has made a vehement contention before this Court, that with the plaintiff being, a, non agriculturist, thereupon, it was unbefitting, for, the learned trial Court, to render a decree for specific performance of the apt agreement, vis-a-vis, the suit property, and, qua him. However, the aforesaid submission, is, rendered extremely fragile, (i) given averments being embodied in the written statement qua the father of the plaintiff hence purchasing land, from, one Man Chand. Since, the father of the plaintiff cannot be expected to make purchase of land, from, one Man Chand, unless, he was an agriculturist, and, when the aforesaid purchase made by the father, of the plaintiff, from, one Man Chand, is not contested, besides with no evidence standing adduced in display of the plaintiff being a non agriculturist, thereupon rather he is to be construed, to be an agriculturist, within, Himachal Pradesh. 12. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala being based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned trial Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 13. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. While rendering the findings, the learned trial Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 13. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, upon, Civil Suit No. 17-P/I/1995 (1992) is affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.