JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment as well as the record. 2. The instant first appeal has been preferred by the appellant defendant Sahi Ram for assailing the judgment-cum-decree dated 16.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.3, Bikaner whereby, the suit filed by the respondent plaintiff Jaisukh Ram for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction was decreed. 3. The respondent plaintiff Jaisukh Ram filed the suit seeking execution of an agreement for sale/transfer of land admeasuring 1500 sq. yards in the village Desalsar, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner by impleading his brother, the appellant herein, as a defendant. The plaintiff claimed in his plaint that acting on a family settlement, he executed a sale deed without consideration in favour of the defendant and transferred his land admeasuring 2400 sq. yards in favour of the defendant and in exchange, in terms of the family settlement, the defendant was obliged to execute a sale deed for a plot of land admeasuring 1500 sq. yards from his pattasuda land, the total measurement whereof was 3000 sq. yards. It was further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff had requested the defendant to execute the agreement but he kept on avoiding the same. 4. yards from his pattasuda land, the total measurement whereof was 3000 sq. yards. It was further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff had requested the defendant to execute the agreement but he kept on avoiding the same. 4. Upon receiving the summons, the appellant defendant appeared before the trial court and filed a written statement with the following pertinent assertions: ^^15- ;g fd oknh ,oa Áfroknh us iq'rSuh o mudh vftZr vpy lEifr dh O;oLFkk ds fy;s ifjokj esa lkSgknZ ,oa lkaetL; ,oa ifjokj dh ,drk] v[k.Mrk ds fy;s ekSf[kd ikfjokfjd le>kSrk fd;k x;kA mDr ekSf[kd ikfjokfjd le>kSrs dks ;knnk'r ds fy;s fnukad 30-05-1993 o 20-06-1994 dks fy[kr dk :i fn;k x;kA mDr fy[kr fnukad 30-05-1993 esa oknh ,oa Áfroknh ds gLrk{kj ds vykok muds firk Jh jkeukjk;.k ds gLrk{kj gS ,oa xokgku esa :?kukFk flag o vkseÁdk'k ds gLrk{kj gSA mDr 22-6-1994 eseksjsUMe vkWQ QSesyh lsVyesaV ij oknh ,oa Áfroknh ds vfrfjDr muds firk Jh jkeukjk;.k th us Hkh lk[k ds :i esa nLr[r fd;s gSA oknh ds mDr le; ckfyx iq= gfjfd'ku ds Hkh gLrk{kj gSA mDr le; Áfroknh ds ckfyx iq= x.k vkseÁdk'k o /keZiky ds gLrk{kj gSA xokg ds :i esa Hkaojyky yqf.k;k ds gLrk{kj gq, gS] mDr eseksjsUMe vkWQ QSesyh lsVyesaV dks lghjke fo'uksbZ Áys[k ys[k dh gLrfyfi esa gSA vr% fyf[kr dFku ÁLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd oknh ,oa Áfroknh ds e/; gq, ekSf[kd ikfjokfjd le>kSrs dh ;knnk'r dh fy[kr fnukad 22-06-1994 dks oknh }kjk Lohdkj djus ij Áfroknh] oknh ds i{k mDr xzke nslylj ds Áfroknh ds iV~Vs'kqnk Hkw[k.M esa ls 1500 oxZxt Hkw[k.M dk foØ; foys[k@nku i= fu"ikfnr dj iathc) djkus ds fy;s jtkean o rRij gSA** 5. Manifestly thus, the appellant defendant agreed to get the agreement dated 22.06.1994 for sale/gift of the 1500 sq. yards plot executed in favour of the plaintiff respondent subject to his acceptance of the terms and conditions settled under the agreement. Manifestly thus, the appellant defendant agreed to get the agreement dated 22.06.1994 for sale/gift of the 1500 sq. yards plot executed in favour of the plaintiff respondent subject to his acceptance of the terms and conditions settled under the agreement. The trial court framed the following issues for determination: ^^1- vk;k QSesyh lsVyesaV fnukad 22-6-1994 ds vk/kkj ij oknh }kjk Áfroknh o mldh iRuh ds i{k esa 2400 oxZxt Hkwfe dk cS;ukek fcuk ÁfrQy fu"ikfnr djok;k x;k ftlds fofu;e ds rkSj ij Áfroknh dks mlds }kjk fd;k x;k bdjkjukek fnukad 22-06-1994 dh vuqikyuk okni= ds in la[;k&4 esa of.kZr Hkw[k.M ds 1@2 vxz.kh mRrjknh 1500 oxZxt dk fgLlk cS;ukek@nkui= oknh ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr djuk Fkk\ & oknh 2- vk;k oknh bdjkjukek fnukad 22-06-1994 dh fofufnZ"V vuqikyuk dh fMØh ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & oknh 3- vk;k oknh pkgk x;k vuqrks"k ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & oknh 4- vuqrks"k\** 6. The plaintiff appeared in evidence to prove the issues. The agreement dated 22.06.1994 was exhibited in original. In cross-examination conducted by the appellant defendant, no suggestion whatsoever was given to the plaintiff as to which of the terms and conditions agreed to between the two brothers (the plaintiff and the defendant) by way of noting dated 30.05.1993 or 22.06.1994, was not complied with. After considering the fact that the plaintiff proved the issue No.1 as well as the issue No.2 beyond all manner of doubt and, as the respondent admitted his obligation to execute the agreement dated 22.06.1994 in favour of the plaintiff, in the culminating part of the written statement and as the defendant did not lead any evidence so as to refute the prayer made by the plaintiff; the learned trial court decreed the suit in the manner stated above by the impugned judgment which is assailed in this appeal. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record. 8. As has already been noted above, the defendant admitted in his afore-quoted para of the written statement that he was ready and willing to execute the family settlement dated 22.06.1994 by virtue whereof, he was under an obligation to execute the registered sale deed/ gift deed in favour of the plaintiff respondent. 8. As has already been noted above, the defendant admitted in his afore-quoted para of the written statement that he was ready and willing to execute the family settlement dated 22.06.1994 by virtue whereof, he was under an obligation to execute the registered sale deed/ gift deed in favour of the plaintiff respondent. The only contention of Shri Punia, learned counsel representing the appellant for assailing the impugned judgment and decree and seeking admission of this appeal, was that the consent of the defendant appellant for getting the sale deed executed was conditional and was subject to the plaintiff’s compliance to the terms and conditions of the previous agreement dated 30.05.1993. As per him, the transfer which the plaintiff made in favour of the defendant for the plot admeasuring 2400 sq. yards was not without consideration and as such, the plaintiff faltered to ensure full compliance of his obligations under the family settlement and hence, he was not entitled to seek specific performance of the agreement dated 22.06.1994. 9. On the contrary, Shri Bhaiya, Advocate appearing for the respondent, vehemently opposed the submissions of Shri Punia and urged that the plaintiff, while swearing his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief, specifically mentioned at paras No.2 and 3 thereof that he executed the transfer deed/ sale deed of the plot admeasuring 2400 sq. yards in favour of the defendant appellant without consideration. Thus, as per Shri Bhaiya, there was no obligation on part of the plaintiff respondent which remained unfulfilled under the family settlement and that is why, the defendant appellant did not contest the suit by appearing in evidence. He thus craves dismissal of the appeal at the admission stage itself. 10. After going through the impugned judgment and upon perusal of the pleadings and evidence as available on record, it is clear that the appellant’s sole objection to the prayer of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract was that he did not comply with the obligations under the family settlement dated 30.05.1993 and as such, he was not entitled to seek execution of the agreement dated 22.06.1994. In this regard, the paras Nos.2 and 3 of the plaintiff’s affidavit, referred to supra, are clear wherein, he has affirmed that he transferred 2400 sq. yards of land in favour of the defendant without accepting any consideration. In this regard, the paras Nos.2 and 3 of the plaintiff’s affidavit, referred to supra, are clear wherein, he has affirmed that he transferred 2400 sq. yards of land in favour of the defendant without accepting any consideration. In the entire cross-examination carried out by the defendant, not a word of suggestion was given to the plaintiff that the transfer of 2400 sq. yards of land made by him to Sahi Ram (defendant) and his wife Shanti Devi was by accepting consideration. The defendant, if at all, had desired to controvert this assertion of plaintiff, he could have clarified this aspect in his written statement or at least could have given a pertinent suggestion to the plaintiff during cross-examination in respect of the sale deeds executed for the plots of 2400 sq. yards. Though, it is vaguely mentioned in para No.3 of the written statement that the sale deeds of 2400 sq. yards executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and his wife were accompanied with consideration but neither was any such sale deed presented by the defendant with his written statement nor was any such suggestion regarding quantum of consideration given to the plaintiff in his cross-examination. In the entire cross-examination conducted from the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant appellant, there was no suggestion that the plaintiff did not comply with any particular term and condition agreed to between the parties through the settlements dated 30.05.1993 or 22.06.1994. 11. In this background, there is no escape from the conclusion that the plaintiff duly proved by appropriate pleadings and evidence the fact that the defendant was under an obligation to execute the registered sale deed of the plot admeasuring 1500 sq. yards in his favour and that the defendant hopelessly failed to rebut this assertion of the plaintiff as no evidence was led. 12. In view of the above discussion, I am of the firm opinion that the instant first appeal is not fit for admission. The impugned judgment and decree dated 16.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.3, Bikaner is based on apropos appreciation of facts as well as in law and does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference therein. 13. Consequently, the appeal as well as the stay application fail and are hereby rejected. Decree be prepared accordingly. 14. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.