JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged judgment and decree dated 25.07.2011, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Rohru in RBT No. 189/1 of 2008/06, vide which, a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent prohibitory injunction filed by the appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed, as well as the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2015, passed by the Court of learned District Judge (II), Shimla, whereby learned Appellate Court upheld the findings so returned by the learned Trial Court in an appeal filed by appellants-plaintiffs. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are as under: Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein, namely, Sh. Bishamber Lal (hereinafter referred to as =the plaintiff') filed a suit for specific performance of contract, dated 21.06.2004 against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as =the defendants') that the defendants be directed to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff of the suit land comprised in Khewat No. 64, Khatauni No. 97, Khasra number new 192, measuring 00-07-02, situated in Chak Pundras, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P and also for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, creating any charge or interfering in the property of the plaintiffs in any manner. As per the plaintiff, land comprised in Khewat No. 64, Khatauni No. 97, Khasra number new 192, measuring 00-07-02, situated in Chak Pundras, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. was possessed by the plaintiff, who has raised an apple orchard over the same in the year 1985 and also constructed a house over the same in the year 1994. Defendant No. 1 executed a sale agreement with the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.3200/- qua the suit land. On the basis of the said sale agreement, the entire sale consideration stood received by defendant No. 1. He also acknowledged that over the suit land, plaintiff had raised an apple orchard and a house of the plaintiff was also constructed over the same. As per plaintiff, recently he came to know that the suit land stood sold by defendant No. 1 as also proforma defendants No. 3 and 4 in favour of defendant No. 2 by executing a sale deed. Plaintiff on numerous occasions requested defendant No. 1 to execute the sale deed, however, the same was not done. As per plaintiff, recently he came to know that the suit land stood sold by defendant No. 1 as also proforma defendants No. 3 and 4 in favour of defendant No. 2 by executing a sale deed. Plaintiff on numerous occasions requested defendant No. 1 to execute the sale deed, however, the same was not done. In this background, the suit stood filed by the plaintiff praying for the following reliefs: ?It is therefore most respectfully prayed that a decree for specific performance of contract may kindly be passed and the defendants be directed to execute a regular sale in favour of the plaintiffs of the suit land denoted Khewat No. 64, Khatauni No. 97, Khasra No. new 192, measuring 00-07-02, situated in Chak Pundras, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. and be restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from alienating, creating charge as well as not to interfere in the property of the plaintiff in any manner.? 3. The suit was resisted by the defendants, who filed a joint written statement. As per them, no sale agreement was ever entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 qua the suit land. The suit land was never possessed by the plaintiff nor he had raised any orchard over the same or constructed any house over it. Suit land stood sold to defendant No. 2, who was in actual possession of the suit land and the orchard existing upon the suit land belonged to the said defendant. Defendants thus prayed that as the suit was a frivolous one, the same be dismissed. 4. By way of replication, the plaintiff reiterated his claim. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following issues: ?1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of agreement dated 21.06.2004, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is also entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain the present suit? OPD. 5. Whether plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit on account of his acts, conduct, deeds and acquiescence? OPD. 6. Whether suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 7. Whether suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly time barred? OPD. 8. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain the present suit? OPD. 5. Whether plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit on account of his acts, conduct, deeds and acquiescence? OPD. 6. Whether suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 7. Whether suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly time barred? OPD. 8. Whether suit of the plaintiff is vague and ambiguous and effect thereof, as alleged? OPD. 9. Whether plaint lacks material particulars, as alleged and effect thereof? OPD. 10. Whether suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 11. Relief. 6. 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. Yes. Issue No. 3 Yes. Issue No. 4 Yes. Issue No. 5 No. Issue No. 6 No. Issue No. 7 No. Issue No. 8 No. Issue No. 9 No. Issue No. 10 No. Issue No. 11 (Relief) Suit of the plaintiff dismissed as per operative part of the judgment." 7. The suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court by holding that agreement, dated 21.06.2004, Ex. PW3/A was not proved on record in accordance with law and even if it was to be assumed that the same stood proved as per law, then also, the same did not assist the cause of the plaintiff. Learned Trial Court held that perusal of the agreement demonstrated that as per contents thereof, some land was stated to have been sold by defendant No. 1 in favour of plaintiff, situated in Chak Pundras, however, Khasra numbers and area of the land purportedly sold, was not mentioned in the agreement. It held that Ex.PW3/A appeared not to be an agreement to sell, but an unregistered sale deed. It held that as there was no mention in the document about the particulars of the land, therefore, it was difficult to ascertain that the land alleged to have been sold, was the same which was mentioned in the agreement. Learned Court further held that the witness produced by the plaintiff, namely, Surat Singh, to prove the execution of the agreement, had stated that he could not tell as to at which place agreement Ex. PW3/A was prepared. Learned Court further held that the witness produced by the plaintiff, namely, Surat Singh, to prove the execution of the agreement, had stated that he could not tell as to at which place agreement Ex. PW3/A was prepared. This witness had further deposed that his signatures were obtained upon the same in a hotel at Chirgaon and except him, none else had signed the document. Learned Court also observed that said witness happened to be the brother of the plaintiff and thus, was an interested witness. With regard to PW-4, scribe of the document, learned Trial Court held that this witness could not state as to where the signatures of the witnesses were obtained on the document and why the execution of the document was not entered in his register. Learned Trial Court held that execution of the document was suspicious and the document could not be relied upon. Learned Court also held that Ex. PW1/A, i.e., Jamabandi demonstrated that defendant No. 1 alongwith other co-sharers, were recorded as joint owners of the suit land, whereas one Jai Karan, was recorded to be in exclusive possession over the suit land. On these bases, learned Court held that no decree qua execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff could be passed. Learned Court further held that purported agreement was stated to have been executed in the year 2004 and if that was so, then nothing had come on record as to what prevented the plaintiff from executing a regular sale deed between two years as from the date of execution of the agreement. Learned Court also held that it had come on record that all the co-sharers had further sold the suit land to defendant No. 2 vide sale deeds Ex. DW1/A and Ex. DW1/C. It reiterated that as plaintiff had failed to prove the execution of agreement to sell, therefore, said sale deeds could not be held to be null and void. Learned Court thus dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff by holding that plaintiff had failed to connect the suit land with the land mentioned in agreement Ex.PW3/A. 8. Learned Appellate Court vide judgment, dated 08.05.2015, upheld the findings returned by the learned Trial Court. While dismissing the appeal, learned Appellate Court held that plaintiff had prayed for a decree for specific performance of agreement as also for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. Learned Appellate Court vide judgment, dated 08.05.2015, upheld the findings returned by the learned Trial Court. While dismissing the appeal, learned Appellate Court held that plaintiff had prayed for a decree for specific performance of agreement as also for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. Perusal of the record demonstrated that suit land stood sold in favour of defendant No. 2 by way of execution of registered sale deed for a sale consideration of Rs.63,000/- vide sale deed executed on 29.08.2006 followed with execution of another sale deed executed on 14.06.2007 for a consideration of Rs.45,000/-. The execution of said sale deeds was never challenged by the plaintiff by amending the plaint. Learned Appellate Court held that suit for cancellation of instrument has to be based on Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, bare perusal of which demonstrated that when a document is valid, no question arises of its cancellation. Learned Appellate Court further held that in case plaintiff seeks to establish his title over a property, then the same could not have been established by him without getting rid of the obstacle which was in his way, i.e., two sale deeds executed in favour of defendant No. 2. Learned Appellate Court thus dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff by holding that learned Trial Court had correctly appreciated the facts as also the evidence on record and as the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence, the same deserved affirmation. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal, which was admitted on the following substantial question of law: ?Whether on account of misreading, mis-appreciation and mis construction of the law and facts as well as the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the judgment and decree under challenge in the main appeal being perverse and vitiated is not legally sustainable? 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the Courts below have erred in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to connect the suit land with Ex.PW3/A, i.e., agreement to sell entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. She has vehemently argued that a perusal of Ex. She has vehemently argued that a perusal of Ex. PW3/A clearly demonstrated that the land referred to in the said document was the suit land, as it had not come on record that there was any other land belonging to defendant No. 1, qua which the said agreement could have been entered into between the parties. On these grounds, she has urged that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. 11. No other point was urged. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that there was no infirmity with the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, nor there was any misreading or mis-appreciation of Ex.PW3/A, as a perusal of the same leads to only one conclusion that the same, by no stretch of imagination, could be connected with the suit land. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below as well as record of the case. 14. The moot issue which this Court has to adjudicate upon is as to whether the learned Courts below have mis-read or mis-appreciated Ex.PW3/A so as to come to the conclusion that the same could not be connected with the suit land? 15. Ex. PW3/A is an Ikrarnama, purportedly entered into between Sh. Amar Sain (defendant No.1) and Sh. Bishamber Lal (plaintiff). A perusal of the contents of the said Exhibit demonstrates that it is mentioned therein that Sh. Amar Sain on his own accord, had agreed to sell his land situated in Chak Pundras in favour of Sh. Bishamber Lal, son of Sh. Hari Saran for a sale consideration of Rs.3200/-. It is further mentioned in this Exhibit that possession of the land stands handed over by Sh. Amar Sain to Sh. Bishamber Lal. Incidentally, there is no mention in the said Exhibit as to which particular land comprised in Chak Pundras, owned by Amar Sain, was being sold by way of said document by him to Sh. Bishamber Lal. In other words, there is no description whatsoever of the land which Amar Sain intended to sale by way of this document to Sh. Bishamber Lal. It has come on record that Amar Sain was not the sole owner of the suit land. Bishamber Lal. In other words, there is no description whatsoever of the land which Amar Sain intended to sale by way of this document to Sh. Bishamber Lal. It has come on record that Amar Sain was not the sole owner of the suit land. Otherwise also, in view of the fact that there is no mention or description of any land in Ex.PW3/A, it cannot be made out from the perusal of said exhibit that the sale pertains to the suit land. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Courts below have either mis-read or mis-appreciated the contents of this document while arriving at the conclusion that the plaintiff had miserably failed to connect the land mentioned in this document with the suit land. 16. To prove the execution of the said agreement, besides himself, plaintiff had examined PW-2 Bhawani Singh, PW-3 Surat Singh and PW-4 Bihari Lal. 17. PW-2, Bhawani Singh is the marginal witness to the execution of agreement to sell. A perusal of examination-in-chief of the said witness, which is there in the form of an affidavit, demonstrates that there is no averment made on affidavit by deponent Bhawani Singh that the Suit land was sold by way of agreement to sell Ex. PW3/A by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff for a sale consideration, which stood received by defendant No. 1 from the plaintiff. All that is contained in this affidavit is that deponent, i.e., Bhawani Singh was aware of the suit land, which as per him was continuing to be in possession of the plaintiff since many years, upon which, plaintiff had grown an apple orchard as well as constructed a house. Now, coming to his cross-examination, a perusal of the same demonstrates that he has deposed therein that he was not aware either about the suit land or Khasra numbers of the same or the area thereof. 18. Similarly, a perusal of the cross-examination of PW-3 Sh. Surat Singh, who as per the plaintiff was also one of the witnesses to the execution of agreement to sell, demonstrates that this witness stated in the Court that he was not aware as to where Ex.PW3/A was prepared and he was called by the plaintiff in a hotel in Chirgaon, where he appended his signatures upon the said document. Surat Singh, who as per the plaintiff was also one of the witnesses to the execution of agreement to sell, demonstrates that this witness stated in the Court that he was not aware as to where Ex.PW3/A was prepared and he was called by the plaintiff in a hotel in Chirgaon, where he appended his signatures upon the said document. He further stated that in his presence none appended his signatures upon the document except him. 19. As far as PW-4 Bihari Lal, Scribe of the sale agreement is concerned, this witness in his cross-examination has stated that whichever document he scribes, he regularly entered the same in his register, however, Ex. PW3/A was not entered in the register as the parties were in a hurry. 20. Be that as it may, in my considered view, even the statements of these witnesses do not, by any stretch of imagination, prove the factum of an agreement to sell having been entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 with regard to the suit land. This is evident from the fact that neither PW-2 nor PW-3 have stated about either the description of the suit land or area thereof in their statements and further their statements even otherwise cannot improve the contents of Ex.PW3/A, which did not contain any descriptions of the land purportedly sold by defendant No. 1 to plaintiff in terms thereof. Therefore also, this Court finds no infirmity with the findings returned by the learned Courts below to the effect that the plaintiff had failed to connect Ex. PW3/A with the suit land. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 21. In view of the observations made hereinabove, as this Court finds no infirmity with the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, the appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Cost easy.