JUDGMENT : SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J. 1. The captioned appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendants who are questioning the judgment and decree of the Courts below granting discretionary relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract in O.S. No. 312/2006 in respect of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 27/2 which is assigned new Sy. No. 111 totally measuring 4 acres. The respondent/plaintiff specifically contended that the appellants/defendants are absolute owners of the suit schedule property. It was also specifically pleaded in the plaint that the katha and the revenue records stand in the name of appellant No. 1/defendant No. 1. The respondent/plaintiff has further pleaded that the appellants/defendants offered to sell the suit schedule property and the respondent/plaintiff agreed to purchase the same and accordingly, the present appellants/defendants entered into an agreement for sale on 05.07.2005 for a valuable sale consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre. The respondent/plaintiff has further pleaded that the sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 7,00,000/- for 4 acres. The appellants/defendants received an advance amount of Rs. 25,000/- and it was further agreed that the balance amount would be paid at the time of registration. The respondent/plaintiff further specifically contended that the appellants/defendants while executing the suit agreement assured the respondent/plaintiff that the suit schedule property is not at all encumbered and thereby agreed to handover the original title deed at the time of registration. It was further stated that the transaction was agreed to be completed within a period of three months. The respondent/plaintiff has further pleaded that on 02.08.2005, the appellants/defendants have received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for legal necessity. The grievance of the respondent/plaintiff before the Court below is that inspite of having agreed to sell the suit schedule property within a period of three months, the appellants/defendants failed to perform their part of contract and this compelled the respondent/plaintiff to issue a legal notice which was served on all the appellants/defendants. The appellants/defendants have issued a reply notice and by doing so, the appellants/defendants have stoutly denied the contents of the legal notice. This compelled the respondent/plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 312/2006. The appellants/defendants, on receipt of summons, contested the proceedings by filing written statement. The appellants/defendants have issued a reply notice and by doing so, the appellants/defendants have stoutly denied the contents of the legal notice. This compelled the respondent/plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 312/2006. The appellants/defendants, on receipt of summons, contested the proceedings by filing written statement. The appellants/defendants stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The appellant No. 1 specifically contended that their joint family comprises other members who are not party to the suit agreement. There was denial of the very execution of the suit agreement in favour of the defendant No. 1. The appellants/defendants have taken a specific contention that they have not at all entered into any transaction with the respondent/plaintiff. The appellants/defendants have specifically stated in the written statement that they offered to sell the suit schedule property to one Chinnabuddi, who has paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- on various dates. It was specifically pleaded in the written statement that since they have not entered into any transaction with the respondent/plaintiff, they are ready to repay the amount paid. The appellants/defendants also contended that since the suit schedule property is a granted land, there is non-alienation clause in the grant order and thereby the respondent/plaintiff cannot enforce the suit agreement in the background of non-alienation clause still in operation. The appellants/defendants also contended that the sale price reflected in the suit agreement is inadequate. They have specifically contended that one acre of land is worth more than Rs. 25,00,000/-. On these set of defences, the present appellants/defendants sought for dismissal of the suit. Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court formulated the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants 1 to 4 have agreed to sell the suit schedule property in her favour for Rs. 7,00,000/- for their legal necessity on 5.7.2005 after receiving earnest money of Rs. 25,000/- from her? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have received further sum of Rs. 10,000/- for their legal necessity on 2.8.2005 from her? (3) Whether the plaintiff proves that she has been ready and ever ready and willing to perform her part of contract from the date of agreement of sale time the date of fling of the suit? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract? 10,000/- for their legal necessity on 2.8.2005 from her? (3) Whether the plaintiff proves that she has been ready and ever ready and willing to perform her part of contract from the date of agreement of sale time the date of fling of the suit? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract? (5) What order or decree?” The respondent/plaintiff in support of her contention has lead in evidence through her GPA holder as PW-1. She has also examined one independent witness who is a signatory to the suit agreement as PW-2. To corroborate ocular evidence, the respondent/plaintiff has relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P-1 to P-11. The appellants/defendants in support of their contention have examined the appellant No. 1 as DW-1 and by way of rebuttal evidence have relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.D-1 and D-2. The Trial Court having examined the oral and documentary evidence has come to conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff has proved that the appellants/defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule property in her favour for a total consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/- and accordingly, she has paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as an advance amount. The Trial Court has further answered issue No. 3 in the affirmative by holding that the respondent/plaintiff has proved that she was ever ready and willing to perform her part of contract. The Trial Court has come to conclusion that the appellants/defendants offered to sell the suit schedule property for legal necessity. The Trial Court having answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative has negatived the contention raised by the appellants/defendants in regard to total denial of execution of suit agreement. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff to establish the signatures of the appellants/defendants to the suit agreement sought to refer the disputed signatures of the appellant No. 1/defendant No. 1 on the suit agreement vide Ex.P-2 with the admitted signatures. The Commissioner having secured the specimen of the disputed signature of appellant No. 1/defendant No. 1 with the admitted signature has submitted a report and in the said report, it is opined that the disputed signatures on Exs.D-1 to D-5 and the specimen signature are made by one and the same person. The Commissioner having secured the specimen of the disputed signature of appellant No. 1/defendant No. 1 with the admitted signature has submitted a report and in the said report, it is opined that the disputed signatures on Exs.D-1 to D-5 and the specimen signature are made by one and the same person. The learned Judge having examined the Commissioner’s report which was not at all objected by either parties and in absence of rebuttal evidence to displace the cogent and clinching evidence lead in by the respondent/plaintiff in regard to due execution of the suit agreement for legal necessity and also on readiness and willingness has come to conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff proved the due execution of the suit agreement as per Ex.P-2 and has also come to conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff has proved her readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract. The Trial Court having examined the rebuttal evidence has further recorded a finding that though appellants/defendants have taken a alternate plea that the transaction entered into was with one Chinnabuddi, however, the same is not at all substantiated by the appellants/defendants. The Trial Court has also come to conclusion that the alternate defence that the market value of one acre of land is Rs. 25,00,000/- is also not substantiated by producing cogent and clinching evidence. In absence of rebuttal evidence, the Trial Court has answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and thereby has proceeded to decree the suit granting discretionary relief of specific performance and thereby directing the appellants/defendants to execute sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The said judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 312/2006 was questioned by the appellants/defendants before the Appellate Court in R.A. No. 243/2013. The Appellate Court being a final fact finding authority has reassessed the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. The Appellate Court at Para-27 of the judgment has come to conclusion that the reasons and findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record and the discretion exercised is based on sound judicial principles. The Appellate Court was of the view that the Trial Court exercising discretion in granting specific performance of contract has not committed any error or illegality. On these set of reasonings, the Appellate Court has proceeded to concur with the findings recorded by the Trial Court and has dismissed the appeal. The Appellate Court was of the view that the Trial Court exercising discretion in granting specific performance of contract has not committed any error or illegality. On these set of reasonings, the Appellate Court has proceeded to concur with the findings recorded by the Trial Court and has dismissed the appeal. The appellants/defendants being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below are before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that both the Courts below grossly erred in non-examining the suit agreement as per Ex.P-2. He would submit to this Court that the suit agreement is incomplete and all the appellants/defendants have not signed the suit agreement. This material aspect is not at all considered by the Courts below. Learned counsel would also submit to this Court that both the Courts below erred in granting discretionary relief of specific performance ignoring the fact that the contract itself is not enforceable since there is a non-alienation clause prohibiting the appellants/defendants from alienating the suit schedule property for a period of 15 years. 4. Learned counsel would further submit to this Court that there is absolutely no evidence adduced by the respondent/plaintiff to establish that the suit agreement was executed by the appellants/defendants for legal necessity. All these significant details are totally ignored and thereby the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below suffers from serious perversity and would give rise to substantial questions of law. To buttress his argument, learned counsel has relied on the judgment rendered in Jayakantham and Others vs. Abaykumar, Civil Appeal No. 3049 of 2017. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants and perused the records. 6. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking enforcement of contract. It is the specific case of the respondent/plaintiff that the appellants/defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/- and accordingly, have received a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as an advance sale consideration. The respondent/plaintiff to prove that the appellants/defendants have executed the present suit agreement as per Ex.P-2 for legal necessity has lead in evidence through her GPA holder- PW-1 and has also examined one witness as PW-2. 7,00,000/- and accordingly, have received a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as an advance sale consideration. The respondent/plaintiff to prove that the appellants/defendants have executed the present suit agreement as per Ex.P-2 for legal necessity has lead in evidence through her GPA holder- PW-1 and has also examined one witness as PW-2. Since the appellants/defendants have totally denied the execution of the suit agreement, the respondent/plaintiff was compelled to seek an expert opinion to verify the disputed signatures of appellant No. 1/defendant No. 1 and the same was referred to fingerprint expert who has compared the admitted signature with the disputed signature and has submitted a report. The report clearly indicates that the appellant No. 1/defendant No. 1 has executed the suit agreement. 7. The ocular evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 coupled with the Commissioners report as per Ex.C-1 would clearly establish that the appellants/defendants for legal necessity entered into an agreement for sale and have accordingly received a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as advance amount. The Trial Court has meticulously dealt with the ocular evidence of rival parties and having appreciated the documentary evidence on record has also recorded a finding that the agreement was executed by the appellants/defendants for legal necessity. The Trial Court has also recorded a finding that the respondent/plaintiff has proved that she was ever ready and willing to perform her part of contract. 8. Both the Courts below have recorded a categorical finding that the appellants/defendants having taken a plea that they have not entered into transaction with the respondent/plaintiff have failed to produce clinching evidence to substantiate their case. Both the Courts have also come to conclusion that the alternate defence that the market value of suit schedule property is Rs. 25,00,000/- per acre is also not substantiated. The appellants/defendants have failed to establish the defence set up in the written statement. Both the Courts on meticulous examination of oral and documentary evidence have come to conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled for discretionary relief and specific performance. 9. Further, the Appellate Court having examined the records more particularly Ex.D-1 has recorded a categorical finding that the non-alienation clause prohibiting the appellants/ defendants from dealing with the suit schedule property for a period of 15 years is in fact completed and there is no impediment for the appellants/defendants to execute sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration. 9. Further, the Appellate Court having examined the records more particularly Ex.D-1 has recorded a categorical finding that the non-alienation clause prohibiting the appellants/ defendants from dealing with the suit schedule property for a period of 15 years is in fact completed and there is no impediment for the appellants/defendants to execute sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration. This defence which was set up by the appellants/defendants is also dealt with by the Courts below holding that there is no prohibition from alienating the suit schedule property. The material on record shows that plaintiff's conduct was blemishless throughout entitling him to specific relief. The plaintiff has succeeded in establishing the necessary ingredients enabling the Court to exercise discretion in his favour judiciously. The defendant No. 1 having received the sale consideration on behalf of the family for legal necessity has set up a false defence by totally denying the very execution of the suit agreement. He has also set up a defence that he is not the absolute owner and that their family members have also got interest in the suit schedule property. The material on record also indicates that the defendants does not come up with clean hands. All these material aspects are dealt with by the Courts below. The trial Court has exercised discretion and has proceeded to grant the relief of specific performance. The findings arrived at by the trial Court is concurred with by the appellate Court. The concurrent findings of fact in regard to due execution of the suit agreement and readiness and willingness are dealt by the Courts below. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC cannot reassess the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. In that view of the matter, the grounds urged in the appeal memo would not give raise to any substantial questions of law. 10. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. No order as to costs.