JUDGMENT 1. The instant second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed by appellant-plaintiff, feeling aggrieved by dismissal of his civil suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 31.12.1985, vide judgment and decree dated 02.09.2006 passed in Civil Suit No.155/1998 (167/2003) by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Sambharlake, District Jaipur which has been affirmed in first appeal No.28/2006 by the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Sambharlake District Jaipur vide judgment dated 28.08.2019. 2. Heard learned counsel for appellant. 3. It appears that both courts below have concurrently held that appellant-plaintiff could not prove execution of agreement dated 31.12.1985 (Ex.1). The appellant-plaintiff claimed to purchase land of 8 biswa of Khasra No.547, measuring total 21 bigha 10 biswa, against sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- and to obtain possession of the same. It is admitted case of plaintiff that vide sale deed dated 18.09.1998 (Ex.2), land of 8 bigha 6 biswa out of Khasra No.547 has been sold to defendant No.3. Plaintiff came out with a case that defendant No.3, on the basis of his registered sale deed dated 18.09.1998, wants to dispossess the plaintiff from his purchased land of 8 biswa and therefore, he instituted the present civil suit. 3.1 In evidence, plaintiff could not produce cogent evidence to prove that he paid Rs.2,000/- and agreement dated 31.12.1985 was executed and further possession over 8 biswa land was delivered to him. That apart, the plaintiff has not given any explanation for maintaining silence for as many as long 13 years after execution of agreement dated 31.12.1985. It has been come on record that PW-2 and PW-3, who are witnesses of plaintiff, themselves admit that defendant No.3 has erected his iron wire fencing over the disputed land it means admits the possession of defendant No.3 therefore, on the basis of such evidence, plaintiff's suit for specific performance and permanent injunction has been dismissed which has been affirmed in first appeal. 4. Both courts below, on appreciation/re-appreciation of evidence on record have concurrently recorded the fact finding in respect of issue Nos.1 and 2 which do not suffer from any perversity nor are based on no evidence or suffer from misreading/non-reading of evidence. The counsel for appellant also could not point out any perversity so as to require interference in both impugned judgments dated 02.09.2006 and 28.08.2019. 5. The counsel for appellant also could not point out any perversity so as to require interference in both impugned judgments dated 02.09.2006 and 28.08.2019. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramathal v. Maruthathal and Ors. [ (2018)18 SCC 303 ] while dealing with the scope of Section 100 CPC to interfere in fact findings of two courts below in respect of decreeing a suit for specific performance observed as under:- "When the intention of the legislature is so clear the courts have no power to enlarge the scope of Section 100 for whatsoever reasons. Justice has to be administered in accordance with law. In the case on hand the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the well considered judgment of the courts below which is based on cogent reasoning. The learned judge ought not to have entered the arena of re appreciation of the evidence, hence the whole exercise done by the High Court is beyond the scope and jurisdiction conferred under Section 100 of CPC." 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal [ (2019) 8 SCC 637 ], has held that a concurrent finding of the fact is binding, unless it is pointed out that it was recorded dehors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or based on misreading of the material on records and documents. The Court held as under: "When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded dehors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. (see observation made by learned Judge Vivian Bose,J. as his Lordship then was a Judge of the Nagpur High Court in Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar & Ors. v. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors.,[AIR 1943 Nag 117 para 43]" 7. (see observation made by learned Judge Vivian Bose,J. as his Lordship then was a Judge of the Nagpur High Court in Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar & Ors. v. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors.,[AIR 1943 Nag 117 para 43]" 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case C. Doddanarayan Reddy v. C. Jayarama Reddy [ (2020) 4 SCC 659 ], has observed that where two courts have reached a finding which is not based upon any misreading of material documents, nor is recorded against provisions of law and neither can it be said that any Judge acting judiciously and reasonably could not have reached such a finding, then High Court is not required to interfere with such fact findings while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. 8. As a result, the second appeal is bereft of merits being no involvement of any substantial question of law and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. 9. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.