JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The plaintiff's suit for rendition of a decree for declaration AND for specific performance of contract besides for permanent prohibitory injunction, stood, under concurrent pronouncements recorded thereon, by both the learned Courts below, hence dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that defendant No.1 is recorded owner in possession of the suit land comprising khata-khatauni No.72/86 and khasra No.950/825, situated in Mohal Banikhet Jarel, Pargana Chuhan, Tehsil Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. On 25.1.1992, defendant No.1 agreed to sell the land measuring one biswa out of the suit land from the sum of Rs.10,000/- to plaintiff. The consideration amount was paid to defendant No.1 and the possession of one biswa of land was deliver to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff constructed his residential house over this one biswa of land. On 25.8.2000, defendant No.1 sold whose khasra No.950/825, measuring 2-12 bighas in favour of defendant No.2 vide registered sale deed for consideration of Rs.30,000/- by ignoring the agreement to sell arrived between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit property as he has already constructed his residential house over one biswa of suit land. Defendant No.2 is trying to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, it has been prayed that this suit be decree for declaration to the effect that defendant No.1 contracted to sell the land to the plaintiff measuring one bsiwa out of khasra No.950/825, measuring 2-12 bighas for the consideration of Rs.10,000/- vide agreement to sell dated 25.1.1992. The sale deed No.117, dated 25.8.2000 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is wrong and illegal. It has also been prayed that this suit be decree for specific performance of contract entered into between the parties, i.e. plaintiff and defendant No.1 on 25.1.1992. It has been further prayed that a decree b rendered for permanent prohibitory injunction by restraining defendant No.2 from interfering in the house constructed by the plaintiff. 3. The defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff and have filed separate written statements. Defendant No.1 in his written statement has taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, limitation and cause of action. On merits, it has been submitted that the plaintiff along with defendant No.2 approached defendant No.1, for sale of one biswa of land for consideration of Rs.10,000/-. 3. The defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff and have filed separate written statements. Defendant No.1 in his written statement has taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, limitation and cause of action. On merits, it has been submitted that the plaintiff along with defendant No.2 approached defendant No.1, for sale of one biswa of land for consideration of Rs.10,000/-. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 are the real brothers and at their instance agreement dated 25.1.1992 was written and the possession of the land was delivered to defendant No.2 as the plaintiff was serving out of station at that time, who requested defendant No.1 to deliver the possession of the land to defendant No.2. The plaintiff never made any construction over the suit land nor he ever came to defendant No.1 after execution of the said agreement. It has been denied that defendant No.1 had sold 2-12 bighas land to defendant No.2 It has been submitted that only three biswas of land was sold to defendant No.2, which includes one biswa of land of the plaintiff. 4. Defendant No.2 in his written statement has taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, estoppel, cause of action and limitation. On merits, it has been denied that an agreement to sell was executed regarding the suit land, nor any amount was paid to defendant No.1 by the plaintiff. The plaintiff never constructed any residential house over the suit land. In fact defendant No.2, purchased three biswas of land from defendant No.1 for consideration of Rs.30,000/- and constructed the residential house over this land in the year 1995-96. Three biswas of land was purchased by the defendant No.2 from defendant No.1, in the year 1995, but the sale deed was executed on 25.8.2000 due to ban on registration and the house was constructed by defendant No.2 upon the suit land in the year 1995. 5. The plaintiff/appellant herein filed replications to the written statements of the defendants/respondents herein, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statements and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of specific performance of contract dated 25.1.1992, as alleged? OPP. 3. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of specific performance of contract dated 25.1.1992, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether suit in the present form is not maintainable as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether suit is barred by the period of limitation as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit against the defendants as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether plaintiff is in possession of one biswa of land out of khasra No.950/825, if so, its effect, as alleged? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit, as alleged? OPD. 9. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the plaintiff/appellant, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal AND affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 8. Now the plaintiff/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 on 13.07.2007, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether both the Courts below have fallen in error by ignoring the written statement filed by defendant No.1 and the statement on oath made by the General Attorney and wife of the original defendant No.1 Smt. Taro Devi (Now LR of the original defendant) which has resulted into palpable totally illegal and erroneous findings on issue Nos. 1 to 8 and if so its effect on the judgments? 2. Whether the judgment of the First Appellate Court being the last Court of facts is vitiated by not discussing or appreciating interpreting the evidence as required in view of the law laid own by the Supreme Court in 2000(5) SCC 653 as well as 2005 (12) SCC page 186? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2 9. 2. Whether the judgment of the First Appellate Court being the last Court of facts is vitiated by not discussing or appreciating interpreting the evidence as required in view of the law laid own by the Supreme Court in 2000(5) SCC 653 as well as 2005 (12) SCC page 186? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2 9. The agreement to sell, borne in Ex.PA was proven both by its scribe and by the GPA, of, defendant No.1. Both the aforesaid witnesses testified, of, the entire sale consideration, borne, in a sum of Rs.10,000/- being liquidated by the plaintiff vis-a-vis defendant No.1, in simultaneity with the execution of Ex.PA. Both also testified qua delivery of possession of the property, mentioned therein, comprising one biswa of land, occurring in immediate simultaneity vis-a-vis execution of Ex.PA. However, with, the plaintiff in his cross-examination, making, an admission, of, his not beseeching defendant No.1, for executing a registered deed of conveyance, in respect of the suit land, (i) whereas, it being enjoined in Ex.PA, qua its execution imperatively occurring within the year 1992, (ii) thereupon, the learned Courts below, drew conclusions, of, the equitable relief of specific performance of contract being not affordable vis-a-vis the plaintiff, especially when he hence was unready and unwilling to perform his part of the contract; (iii) time being the essence vis-a-vis execution of a registered deed of conveyance in respect of the suit land, (iv) thereupon the plaintiff being disentitled to seek discretionary besides equitable relief of specific performance of Ex.PA. Furthermore, obviously both the learned Courts below, recorded concurrent conclusions, of, the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of contract, falling out side the mandatorily enjoined period of limitation, thereupon, it warranting its dismissal. 10. Furthermore, obviously both the learned Courts below, recorded concurrent conclusions, of, the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of contract, falling out side the mandatorily enjoined period of limitation, thereupon, it warranting its dismissal. 10. Be that as it may, for the reasons, to be assigned hereinafter, the aforesaid inferences drawn by both the learned Courts below are gripped with grave infirmities, (a) with the GPA of defendant No.1, making disclosures in her testification, of, possession of the suit land being delivered to the plaintiff in simultaneity of execution of Ex.PA; (b) the entire sale consideration also being liquidated thereat by the plaintiff vis-a-vis defendant No.1; (c) with the work force, employed by the plaintiff, for construction of a house thereon, making graphic echoings, in their testifications, of, both the plaintiff and defendant No.2 defraying, the necessary wages to them, (d) thereupon, the mere factum, of, authorities concerned issuing notices upon defendant No.2, for his raising un-athorised construction, (e) with the house located purportedly, on, the suit khasra number, being entered in the Panchayat record, in the name of defendant No.2, (f) besides with an electricity meter being installed in the name of defendant No.2, hence would obviously lose respective vigours, (g) especially when the plaintiff unequivocally deposes, of his being employed at a place other than the place, whereat, the suit property is situated, hence precluding him to throughout stay in the suit property. (h) Absences whereof, of the plaintiff being capitalized by defendant No.2, to in his absence, hence, take possession of the entire construction raised on the suit property, (i) errections, of, the inferences aforestated also blunt all disabling effects vis-a-vis the plaintiff's suit, being, barred by limitation, given his not instituting it, within three years since the year 1992, within year whereof, a registered deed of conveyance was enjoined in Ex.PA, to be, hence, executed, (j) besides the disabling effects vis-a-vis the plaintiff, sparked, by his admissions occurring his cross-examination, reflective, of his purported un-readiness, to perform his part of obligation, comprised, in his making echoings therein, of, within the yea 1992, his omitting to beseech defendant No.1, for executing a registered deed of conveyance in respect of the land, recited in Ex.PA, thereupon, also lose their vigour. Accentuated vigour to the aforesaid inference, is, galvanized by the factum of the counsel for the defendant, while, holding the plaintiff to cross-examination, purveying affirmative suggestions vis-a-vis him, (k) of, the land measuring 1 biswa recited, in, Ex.PA, being included in the sale deed executed qua three biswas of land, sale deed whereof stood executed inter se defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, whereto, an affirmative response was purveyed by the plaintiff. The effects thereof, is of, with the sale deed inter se defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, being executed in the year 2000 and its including the land recited, in, EX.PA, “when is construed in coagulation” with the testifictions, of, the labourers/work force, deployed, by the plaintiff, to raise construction of a house upon the land in respect whereof, Ex.PA, was executed, (l) testifications whereof unfold of both the plaintiff and defendant No.2, defraying, the apposite wages to them, for the relevant construction, (m) besides bearing in the mind, the factum, of, this Court dispelling the vigour of (n) notices being issued by the Town and Country Planning vis-a-vis defendant No.2, for, his raising unauthorised construction upon the suit land; (o) its also blunting, the effect, of, the apposite house being entered in the Panchayat record, in, the name of defendant No.2 AND (p) besides, of, the electricity meter being installed in the name of defendant No.2, (q) besides bearing in mind, the evident fact of the plaintiff, given, his preoccupations with his employment, in a place other than the place, whereat, the suit property is located, hence, being precluded to remain physically present at the relevant site. (r) Absences whereof, stood capitalized by defendant No.2, to, take exclusive possession of the construction, raised, on even the land mentioned in Ex.PA. (r) Absences whereof, stood capitalized by defendant No.2, to, take exclusive possession of the construction, raised, on even the land mentioned in Ex.PA. Necessarily, hence, when a part of the land mentioned in Ex.PA, is, included in the sale deed executed inter se defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, whereupon, the plaintiff, is, concomitantly, disempowered to, upon apposite occasions, hence, espouse of his being lawfully entitled, to the benefits, of, Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, enshrining the principles of part performance, s principles whereof are evidently espousable by the plaintiff, given, the entire sale consideration being evidently liquidated by him to defendant No.1, in simultaneity to the proven execution of Ex.PA AND possession of the suit land being also delivered to him in simultaneity thereof, (t) whereas, when for all the reasons aforesaid, he was, despite, his evidently defraying along with defendant No.2, wages, to the work force/labourers, for completing construction thereon, hence thwarted, to, take possession thereof, rather hence defendant No.2 taking exclusive possession of the construction raised thereon. Corollaries whereof, are, of with the plaintiff, throughout, since 1992, upto the execution, of an apposite sale deed in the year 2000 inter se defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, was under, a bonafide belief of his holding possession, upon, the suit land AND, when despite, non execution, of an apposite registered deed of conveyance, he for all the reasons aforestated, stood empowered, to, resist, the suit, if any, instituted by defendant No.1, for, possession AND for permanent prohibitory injunction, WHEREAS, the latter registered deed, of conveyance, of, 2000, rather frustrating all the aforesaid tenable endeavoures, of, the plaintiff. Obviously, thereupon, sanctity is to be meted to him. Moreover, when he has in his plaint, averred, of the causes of action arising in his favour, upon, execution of sale deed inter se defendant No.1 and 2 in the year 2000, sale deed whereof included therein, the land mentioned in Ex.PA, thereupon, in the interest of justice and fair play, it is deemed fit and appropriate, to, hence conclude, that, the cause of action, when, evidently arose vis-a-vis the plaintiff in the year 2000, hence, for all aforestated reasons, the plaintiff's suit being, not outside the period of limitation, dehors admissions occurring in the cross-examination of the plaintiff, qua his not beseeching, defendant No.1, within the year 1992, for executing a registered deed of conveyance. 11. 11. Be that as it may, since there is no proven evidence, in respect of the sale deed, executed, inter se defendant No.1 and 2, in the year 2000, being a sequel of undue influence or coercion, thereupon, it is not befitting to invalidate it. The total land extantly owned and possessed by defendant No.1, is, comprised in an area of more than 1 bigha, thereupon, when hence, a small tract of, one biswas can therefrom, be, made subject matter, of, a registered deed of conveyance, to be executed inter se the plaintiff and defendant No.1, hence, defendant No.1 is directed to, within three months, from today, execute a registered deed of conveyance, with, the plaintiff, only with respect, to, one biswas of land, descriptions whereof is given in Ex.PA. Even though, both the learned courts below, make echoings, in their respective renditions of khasra numbers of land measuring, one biswa, being not ascribed therein, nonetheless, when the last portion of Ex.PA, carries references, for, identifying the area of one biswas, thereupon defendant No.1 is directed to execute the registered deed of conveyance in favour the plaintiff, emphatically in consonance therewith. 12. The above discussion, unfolds, the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as well as by the learned trial Court being not based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court have excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. 13. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are set aside. In sequel, the plaintiff's suit is decreed and defendant No.1 is directed, to, within three months from today executed registered deed of conveyance qua the suit land measuring 1 biswa, strictly, in consonance with Ex. PA. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back.