JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this Second Appeal is to the judgment and order dated 26.5.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kairana, Muzaffar Nagar, in Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2015, Sanjeev Vs. Surendra Singh, arising out the judgment and order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kairana, in Original Suit No. 96 of 2009, Surendra Singh Vs. Sanjeev, whereby the learned lower appellate court has partly allowed the appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the point of admission and perused the record. 3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 96 of 2009 filed for specific performance of contract. According to the plaint averments, the defendant-respondent had entered into an agreement to sell the dispute land i.e. plot no. 2477 measuring 0.803 hectare to the plaintiff-appellant for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-out of which Rs. 1,00,000/-was paid as earnest money and the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/-was to be paid on 25.11.2008, at the time of execution of the sale deed. The agreement to sell was registered on 26.5.2008. It was further averred by the plaintiff that he sent a notice to the defendant on 4.11.2008 by registered post asking him to come to Registration office on 25.11.2008, which was the last date as per the terms of the agreement for execution of the sale deed. The notice was received by the defendant, who replied to the said notice on 22.11.2008. However, the defendant did not reach the Registration office on the stipulated date whereas the plaintiff waited for the defendant in the Registration Officer since 10.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. with the amount of Rs.50,000/-, which was to be paid to him but the defendant did not come to fulfill his part of the agreement. Therefore, the plaintiff had to return after entering his presence in the Registration Office. It was averred by the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendant breached the agreement, therefore, it was prayed that the defendant be directed to receive Rs. 50,000/-i.e. the remaining amount of sale consideration and to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of the disputed land. 4. 50,000/-i.e. the remaining amount of sale consideration and to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of the disputed land. 4. The defendant filed written statement in which he denied to have entered into any such agreement to sell his land to the plaintiff. Although he admitted his signature and thumb marks on the agreement deed but stated that on 26.5.2008 he was busy in execution of another agreement to sell his property to one Balbir Singh and the plaintiff, taking undue advantage of this situation asked him to sign on some paper on the pretext that he was taking his signatures in the capacity of a witness as he had to take some loan from the Bank. According to the defendant, the plaintiff, by playing fraud on him, obtained his signatures and thumb impressions on some documents, which he put without reading those documents. It was further stated in the written statement that the value of the disputed land at the time of agreement was minimum Rs. Nine lacs. The defendant being a farmer and the land in question being his only source of income, there was no question to sell it for Rs.1,50,000/-only. 5. The learned trial court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed four issues out of which issue no. 1 was the relevant issue, which was to the effect that whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract dated 26.5.2008. 6. Learned trial court after considering the evidence led by both the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has successfully proved that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He has also sent notice to the defendant, which has been received by him, who has replied to the notice. He has entered his presence in the Registration office on 25.11.2008 whereas the defendant has failed to prove that any fraud was played upon him by the plaintiff while entering into the agreement to sell. Accordingly, the trial court decreed the suit directing the defendant to receive the remaining amount of sale consideration and to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months. 7. Being aggrieved, the defendant filed Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2015. Accordingly, the trial court decreed the suit directing the defendant to receive the remaining amount of sale consideration and to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months. 7. Being aggrieved, the defendant filed Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2015. The learned lower appellate court once again appreciated in detail the entire evidence on the same issue no.1 as framed by the learned trial court and came to the conclusion that the agreement to sell being a registered deed, should be presumed to be genuine. The learned lower appellate court found that the defendant has failed to prove that any fraud was played by the plaintiff on him while obtaining his signatures and thumb impressions on the said agreement, in view of the fact that no evidence with regard to fraud was adduced by the defendant during trial. The lower appellate court also recorded a clear finding that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, despite all these findings in favour of the plaintiff, the learned lower appellate court set aside the judgment of trial court, in wake of the legal provision of Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act. 8. Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act provides that specific performance of any contract may, in the discretion of the court, be enforced only in the two following situations: (a) when there exists no standard for ascertaining actual damage caused by the non-performance of the act agreed to be done; or (b) when the act agreed to be done is such that compensation in money for its non-performance would not afford adequate relief. Explanation.-Unless and until the contrary is proved, the court shall presume— (i) that the breach of a contract to transfer immovable property cannot be adequately relieved by compensation in money; and (ii) that the breach of a contract to transfer movable property can be so relieved except in the following cases:— (a) where the property is not an ordinary article of commerce, or is of special value or interest to the plaintiff, or consists of goods which are not easily obtainable in the market; (b) where the property is held by the defendant as the agent or trustee of the plaintiff. 9. Learned lower appellate court took into consideration the market value of the disputed land, which was admittedly about Rs. 9. Learned lower appellate court took into consideration the market value of the disputed land, which was admittedly about Rs. 12 lacs at the time of agreement as the plaintiff himself during trial had admitted that the value of the disputed land was about Rs. 3 lacs per bigha. The learned lower appellate court was of the view that the agreement to sell the land amounting to Rs.12 lacs has been entered into between the parties for a meagre consideration of only Rs.1,50,000/-, which cannot be said to be a valid consideration. Moreso, the defendant being a farmer and the disputed land being his only source of livelihood, the equitable and discretionary relief of specific performance of contract should not be granted to the plaintiff specially when the act agreed between the parties can be properly compensated in terms of money. Accordingly, the lower appellate court partly allowed the appeal. It set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and directed the defendant-respondent to return the amount of Rs. One Lac given to the plaintiff along with 6% simple interest within sixty days from the judgment. 10. Now the plaintiff-appellant is before this court in the Second Appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the lower appellate court has passed the impugned judgment whereby partly allowing the appeal, only on the basis of surmises and conjectures, without keeping in view the fact that defendant has failed to prove any fraud in the transaction as alleged by him, whereas the plaintiff has successfully proved his willingness and readiness to perform his part of the contract. 12. I do not find any substance in the aforesaid arguments. The lower appellate court has not reverted the findings of trial court that the defendant has failed to prove that any fraud was played on him by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Learned lower appellate court has also held the agreement deed to be a genuine document, the deed being a registered one. Learned lower appellate court has also held the agreement deed to be a genuine document, the deed being a registered one. However, the appeal was partly allowed by it on the ground that the relief being an equitable and discretionary relief, which can be compensated in terms of money and the defendant being a farmer, whose only source of income is the disputed land, he should not be deprived of such land for such a nominal consideration. There does not appear any illegality or perversity in the aforesaid finding of learned lower appellate court. 13. The scope of second appeal is very limited and it can be admitted only on a substantial question of law. 14. In this second appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has framed the following proposed substantial questions of law: A. Whether the learned appellate court below has misread and not considered the finding of trial court regarding to issue no. 1 framed in said original suit? B. Whether on material available on record and circumstance of the case, civil appeal preferred by defendant/respondent could be dismissed virtue in finding by lower appellate court judgment and decree dated 26.5.2018 in which stated that defendant/respondent has failed to prove deceit and fraud in agreement in question and also unpaid amount as recompense? C. Whether the judgment and decree dated 26.5.2018 passed by learned lower appellate court has not passed properly appreciating and discussing the reasons given by learned trial court in original suit filed by plaintiff/appellant regarding to specific performance of contract as registered agreement to sale deed 26.5.2008? D. Whether the learned appellate court has passed judgment and decree dated 26.5.2018 only on ground of courtesy upon the defendant/respondent in regard to worth of agricultural land? 15. None of the aforesaid questions can be termed as substantial question of law. 16. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not find any arguable substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 17. The term "substantial question of law" has been interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. 18. In State Bank of India and others Vs. S.N. Goyal; (2008) 8 SCC 92 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "Second appeals would lie in cases which involve substantial questions of law. 17. The term "substantial question of law" has been interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. 18. In State Bank of India and others Vs. S.N. Goyal; (2008) 8 SCC 92 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "Second appeals would lie in cases which involve substantial questions of law. The word 'substantial' prefixed to 'question of law' does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the parties. 'Substantial questions of law' means not only substantial questions of law of general importance, but also substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties. In the context of section 100 CPC, any question of law which affects the final decision in a case is a substantial question of law as between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally, having no bearing in the final outcome, will not be a substantial question of law. Where there is a clear and settled enunciation on a question of law, by this Court or by the High Court concerned, it cannot be said that the case involves a substantial question of law." 19. In Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari, 2001(3) SCC 179 the Supreme Court considered what the phrase "substantial question of law" means as under:- "The phrase is not defined in the Code. The word "substantial", as qualifying question of law, means-of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with-technical, of no substances or consequence, or academic merely." 20. Full Bench of Madras High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao. Vs. Noony Veeraju, AIR 1951 Madras 969 considered this term and observed: "when a question of law is fairly arguable, where there is room for difference of opinion or where the Court thought it necessary to deal with that question at some length and discuss an alternative view, then the question would be a substantial question of law. Vs. Noony Veeraju, AIR 1951 Madras 969 considered this term and observed: "when a question of law is fairly arguable, where there is room for difference of opinion or where the Court thought it necessary to deal with that question at some length and discuss an alternative view, then the question would be a substantial question of law. On the other hand, if the question was practically covered by decision of highest Court or if general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and the only question was of applying those principles to the particular fact of case, it could not be a substantial question of law." 21. The above observations were affirmed and concurred by a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons Ltd. Vs. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314 . Referring to above authorities, the Court in Santosh Hazari (supra) said: "A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be substantial, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, in so far as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law involving in the case there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis." 22. In Dharmabiri Rana Vs. In Dharmabiri Rana Vs. Mramod Kumar Sharma (dead) through Legal Representatives and others, (2018)11 SCC 554 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:- “12.In view of the above findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, the suit was rightly dismissed. The High Court has also rightly dismissed the Regular Second Appeal holding that it does not contain any substantial question of law. We do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. With the result, the Civil Appeal is dismissed.” 23. In view of the above cited legal position and in absence of any arguable substantial question of law, this Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is accordingly dismissed.