JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.1.2018, passed by learned Additional District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.20-D/XIII/09, affirming the judgment and decree dated 9.1.2009, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P, in civil Suit No.24/2000/97, whereby suit for Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell having been filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) was decreed. 2. Facts, as emerge from the record are that plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 6.8.1978, which was further revised vide agreement dated 12.3.1994 against the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘defendants’), averring therein that on 6.8.1978, the parties to the lis entered into an agreement to sell 2 kanals of land, comprised in Khata No.14, Khatauni No.23, Khasra No.1034/668 situate in Tika Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P, for a consideration of Rs.12000/-. Plaintiff averred in the plaint that at the time of agreement, tatima of Khasra No.688/2 was prepared and defendants as per agreement handed over the possession of the land proposed to be sold by him on receipt of entire consideration amount and he after taking possession of the suit land, constructed a shed thereon, raised retaining wall, levelled a part of the same, fenced the same and put a gate for egress and ingress. Plaintiff further averred that at the time of agreement, defendants had disclosed that the suit land has not been mutated in his name, as such, it was agreed that the sale deed would be executed after the mutation. But, fact remains that defendants on one pretext or other did not execute the sale deed. In the year, 1994, plaintiff came to know that defendant had sold some portion of the suit land to some other person, plaintiff approached the defendant to execute the sale deed in terms of agreement dated 6.8.1978, but he demanded more money for the execution of the sale deed on the ground that market value of the suit has increased. In the year, 1994, plaintiff came to know that defendant had sold some portion of the suit land to some other person, plaintiff approached the defendant to execute the sale deed in terms of agreement dated 6.8.1978, but he demanded more money for the execution of the sale deed on the ground that market value of the suit has increased. Accordingly, plaintiff with a view to maintain cordial relations and to avoid litigation agreed to pay Rs.25,000/- over and above Rs.12,000/- already paid by him at the time of execution of agreement to sell and as such, plaintiff in total paid sum of Rs.37,000/- towards sale consideration. At the time of making payment of Rs.37,000/-, fresh agreement dated 12.3.1994 came to be entered into the parties to the lis, whereafter defendant agreed to execute the sale deed within a month and on the expiry of said period, both the parties came to the Office of Sub Registrar on 11.4.1994 and purchased stamp papers worth Rs.4440/- for the execution of the sale deed. On the next day, the parties went to deed writer and prepared rough draft of the sale deed and also prepared a tatima of the suit land, but defendant allegedly at the time of execution of sale deed, slipped away and feigned sickness. The plaintiff in the suit averred that he always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, but defendant on one pretext or other kept on postponing the execution of the sale deed on health ground. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant is bound to execute the sale deed in terms of agreement dated 6.8.1978, which was revised vide agreement dated 12.3.1994. 3. Defendant by way of written statement contested the suit and claimed that possession of the suit land was never delivered to the plaintiff and the agreement dated 6.8.1978 is illegal, null and void. Defendant further claimed that Khasra No.688/2 does not exist in the revenue record and the parties knew that there is mistake qua location, identity and khasra numbers and as such, plaintiff through his father expressed his unwillingness to purchase the land and accordingly, money received by the defendant was partly adjusted and partly returned to the defendant. Defendant further claimed that Tatima is an outcome of fraud. Defendant further claimed that Tatima is an outcome of fraud. The plaintiff refused to purchase the suit land and thereafter in order to adjust Rs.12,000/-,he purchased television set in the year, 1978, amplifier, radio, two-in-one etc. and when the plaintiff disputed, the defendant made payment of Rs.5000/- on 27.6.1993 through a cheque in order to end the dispute forever. Defendant further claimed in the written statement that he sold some portion of his holding out of khasra No. 1034/688 to Vijay Kumar, Atul Chand Guleria, S.S. Sodhi and one more person to which plaintiff never objected and as such, orientation of Khasra No.688 has totally been changed and parties considered the agreement to be null and void. Defendant further alleged that a temporary shed was forcibly raised by the plaintiff on the spot on 12.3.1994 with the help of 13-14 persons and on the same day, the plaintiff alongwith 5-6 persons came to the house of the defendant and lifted the defendant and his son and took them to the house of the deed writer, where they were forcibly made to sign the agreement dated 12.3.1994 under coercion and as such, agreement dated 12.3.1994 is null and void. Defendant further averred that land mentioned in both the agreements does not correspond to each other and he at no point of time accompanied the plaintiff to Tehsil complex on 12.4.1994 for the execution of the sale deed and as such, he is not bound to execute the sale deed. 4. By way of replication, plaintiff while denying the allegations made in the written statement, re-affirmed and reasserted the stand taken in the plaint. 5. On the basis of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective, learned trial Court framed following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement dated 6.8.1978 revised by agreement dated 12.3.1994, as alleged? OPP. 2. In case issue No.1 is not proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs. 37,000/- as compensation, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within time? OPD. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct? OPD. 5-A. Whether the agreement dated 6.8.1978 was illegal, null and void, as alleged? OPD. 37,000/- as compensation, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within time? OPD. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct? OPD. 5-A. Whether the agreement dated 6.8.1978 was illegal, null and void, as alleged? OPD. 5-B. Whether the defendant has returned to the plaintiff a consideration of Rs.12,000/- which has been received in lieu of agreement dated 6.8.1978, is so , its effect? OPD. 5-C. Whether the agreement dated 12.3.1994 is without consideration and is a result of threat, coercion, intimidation and fraud and thus is illegal, null and void, as alleged? OPD. 6. Relief:- 6. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and held entitled the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 6.8.1978 Ex.PW2/E, revised vide agreement dated 12.3.1994 Ex.PW1/A with regard to the land measuring 768 sq. meters as shown in map Ex.PW2/F and described in agreement dated 12.3.1994 Ex.PW1/A, out of khasra No.4884/3450 in Khata No.65, Khatauni No.181, situated in Up Mohal Dharamshala, Mauza Dharamshala, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., as per jamabandi 1990-91. Learned Court below further ordered that Map Ex.PW2/F shall form part of the decree. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, appellants/defendants preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., which also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2.1.2018. In the aforesaid background, appellants have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for dismissal of the suit having been filed by the plaintiff, after setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. 8. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, be it ocular or documentary adduced on record by the respective parties vis-a-vis impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. 8. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, be it ocular or documentary adduced on record by the respective parties vis-a-vis impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel representing the appellants that the judgments passed by learned Courts below are not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence, rather this Court finds that both the Courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously and the judgments passed by learned Courts below do not call for any interference. Careful perusal of the judgments passed by learned Courts below reveal that both the Courts below have read evidence in its right perspective and rendered on record concurrent findings on facts and law, which do not call for any interference. 9. In nutshell, case of the appellants-defendants, as projected by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, is that agreement dated 6.8.1978, revised vide agreement dated 12.3.1994 was null and void and same could not be looked into by the Courts below being result of fraud because there is no description as such of land proposed to be sold, if any, by the defendants. Mr. Suri further contended that agreement dated 6.8.1978 was neither acted upon nor the possession was ever delivered to the plaintiff. He further contended that as per provisions of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which are mandatory, plaintiff has failed to aver in the plaint with regard to his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement and as such, learned courts below have erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. He further contended that otherwise also, if conduct of the plaintiff is seen or gathered from the pleadings, equitable relief of specific performance, as prayed for by him in the suit could not be granted in his favour. 10. To the contrary, Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, learned counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff, while supporting the impugned judgments, contended that it stands duly proved on record that vide agreement dated 6.8.1978, which was further revised on 12.3.1994, defendants had agreed to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and in this regard, he had received a sum of Rs.37,000/-, as total sale consideration. Mr. Mr. Rathore, fairly stated that though the plaint may not be very happily worded, but if plaint is read in its entirety, it clearly reveals that plaintiff specifically averred that he was ever ready and willing to perform his part. He further stated that arguments having been made by learned counsel representing the appellants-defendants with regard to non delivery of possession is not tenable because factum with regard to delivery of possession pursuant to agreement to sell dated 6.8.1978 stands duly proved because it is not in dispute that prior to filing of the instant suit, defendant had filed civil suit bearing No.89/94 against the plaintiff for declaration, possession and permanent prohibitory injunction on 23.4.1994, but same was dismissed, meaning thereby possession pursuant to agreements, referred hereinabove, was delivered, which thereafter was being sought to be restored by the defendants by way of suit, as has been referred hereinabove. 11. Having carefully perused the material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute with regard to ownership of the defendants qua the suit land, rather same stands duly proved on record by the plaintiff, who proved on record jamabandi of the suit land for the year 1990-91 Ex.P.1. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant agreed to sell the suit land to plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.12,000/- vide agreement dated 6.8.1978 Ex.PW2/E, which was further revised vide agreement dated 12.3.1994 Ex.PW1/A, wherein consideration amount was enhanced to Rs.37,000/-. Careful perusal of agreements, referred hereinabove, clearly suggest that consideration as mentioned in the agreement Ex.PW2/E was paid to the defendant. In the case at hand, plaintiff has claimed that despite repeated requests, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed. Though, defendant has admitted the factum with regard to execution of agreement dated 6.8.1978 Ex.PW2/E, but he has denied the factum with regard to delivery of possession of the suit land to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the said agreement. But aforesaid stand taken taken by the defendants appears to be totally false because of the fact that prior to filing of the instant suit by the plaintiff, he himself had instituted civil suit No.89/94 against the plaintiff for declaration, possession and permanent prohibitory injunction on 23.4.1994, wherein similar issues were struck qua validity of both the agreements in the said suit. Learned District Judge, in para-15 of his judgment has categorically recorded that aforesaid suit having been filed by the defendant was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kangra at Dharamshala vide judgment and decree dated 23.6.2005 Though defendant had assailed the aforesaid judgment and decree in appeal, but the same was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala vide judgment and decree dated 28.7.2008. Judgment clearly reveals that plaintiff successfully proved on record the factum of the filing of aforesaid civil suit. Learned counsel for the defendant was unable to dispute the factum with regard to filing of the civil suit bearing No.89/94 by the defendant against the plaintiff as well as its dismissal by two courts below, as has been referred hereinabove. 12. There is ample evidence on record suggestive of the fact that pursuant to agreement PW2/E, the possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff. Agreement Ex.PW2/E was further revised vide agreement EX.PW1/A, bare reading of the same itself suggests that possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale deed. This Court need not to elaborate or discuss the evidence qua the delivery of possession because of definite findings returned by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Civil Suit No.89/94, which have otherwise attained finality. Rather record reveals that learned Civil Judge(Senior Division) in the previous suit having been filed by the defendant had already held both the agreements (Ex.PW2/E & Ex.PW1/A) to be valid. Though, in the written statement defendant has taken contradictory pleas i.e., Khasra No.488/2 does not correspond to the suit land, land does not exist on the spot and land to different persons stood sold, but DW-4, Sh. Atul Kapoor, the son of the defendant in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that a chunk of the land is lying vacant, over which shed of the plaintiff exists. If the statement of DW-4 is read juxtaposing stand taken by the plaintiff in his plaint, it proves the case of the plaintiff that he after having obtained possession of the suit land raised shed over the same. If the statement of DW-4 is read juxtaposing stand taken by the plaintiff in his plaint, it proves the case of the plaintiff that he after having obtained possession of the suit land raised shed over the same. DW-6 also admitted that land described in both the agreements is one and the same, meaning thereby chunk of the land, which has been stated to be lying vacant on the spot by DW-4 is in the possession of the plaintiff, whereupon he has raised the shed which fact has been otherwise admitted by DW-4 and DW-6. 13. Moreover, there is no positive evidence, if any, led on record by the defendants to the effect that plaintiff surrendered the possession qua the suit property after selling of the property by the defendants to the other persons, as have been alleged by the defendant in his written statement. Land mentioned in agreement Ex.PW1/A, is the same which was agreed to be sold vide agreement Ex.PW2/E. 14. Though, defendant has taken the plea that plaintiff forcibly constructed the shed on 12.3.1994, but he failed to adduce on record any evidence that complaint, if any, was ever lodged by him to the police qua the alleged criminal trespass, whereas plaintiff successfully proved on record tatima of the suit land Ex.PW2/F prepared by the Patwari. No doubt, in the instant case said Patwari was not examined, but learned Courts below has taken note of the fact that said patwari was examined in the previous litigation, wherein Patwari has proved the tatima Ex.PW2/F. The certified copy of the statement of Patwari Ex.PW7/N has been also proved on record by the plaintiff in the said proceedings and as such, learned Court below rightly concluded that there is no mistake as to the identity of the land proposed to be sold vide agreement Ex.PW2/E and as such, agreement Ex.PW2/E is not vague. 15. This Court is also not in agreement with the arguments of learned counsel representing the appellants/defendants that plaintiff has not specifically averred in the plaint that he had always been ready and willing to perform his part of agreement because if plaint is read in its entirety, especially para-8, it clearly suggests that the plaintiff has specifically averred that he always ready and willing to perform his part of agreement. Moreover, there is ample evidence on the record that plaintiff repeatedly asked defendant to come forward to perform his part of agreement. He paid entire sale consideration of Rs.37,000/- in terms of agreement Ex.PW2/E. Though, defendant has taken stand that some money was returned by him, but there is no evidence to prove that he had paid some money taken by him towards sale consideration of Rs.12,000/-. Factum with regard to plaintiff purchased stamp paper worth Rs.4440/- also stands proved on record. 16. In the case at hand, plaintiff has specifically alleged that he after having purchased stamp papers went to the office of Sub-Registrar for getting the sale deed registered, but defendant slipped away and never turned up for getting the sale deed registered. Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, clearly provides that readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent for obtaining relief of specific performance. Similarly, to have the relief of specific performance plaintiff is required to specifically allege and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract on his part from the date of the contract and in this regard onus to prove the same is also on the plaintiff. In the instant case, plaintiff has successfully discharged the onus upon him by leading cogent and convincing evidence that from the date when the agreement to sell was executed, he was ready and willing to perform his part, but it was defendant, who on one pretext or other kept on postponing the registration of the sale deed. 17. Having carefully gone through the material available on record vis-a-vis reasonings assigned by the learned Courts below, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel representing the appellants/defendants that substantial question of law, if any, arise for determination in the case, rather this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the judgments passed by the learned Courts below are based upon the proper appreciation of evidence and there is no scope of interference, especially when no question of law muchness substantial arise for determination of this Court. 18. Mr. 18. Mr. V.S. Rathore, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, supported the judgments passed by both the Courts below and vehemently argued that no interference, whatsoever, is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case, especially in view of the fact that both the courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter. He also urged that scope of interference by this Court is very limited, especially when two courts have recorded concurrent findings on the facts as well as law. In this regard, to substantiate the aforesaid plea, he placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been held as under: “16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have established their right in A schedule property. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the A schedule property for road and that she could not have full-fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to the plaintiffs’ right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.” (p.269) 19. Aforesaid exposition of law clearly suggests that High Court, while excising power under Section 100 CPC, cannot upset concurrent findings of fact unless the same are shown to be perverse. But, in the case at hand, this Court while examining the correctness and genuineness of submissions having been made by the parties, has carefully perused evidence led on record by the respective parties, perusal whereof certainly suggests that the Courts below have appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and there is no perversity, as such, in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. Moreover, learned Counsel representing the appellants-defendants was unable to point out perversity, if any, in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and as such, same do not call for any interference. 20. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, no substantial question of law, if any, arises of determination in the present appeal and as such, same is dismissed accordingly. Interim directions, if any, are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.