JUDGMENT : (Satyen Vaidya, J.) 1. Appellants have preferred Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against judgment and decree dated 21.12.2006 passed by learned District Judge, Una, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 134 of 1999 whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.5.1999, passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Una, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 163 of 1989, has been affirmed. 2. The suit for specific performance of agreement to sell land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 73/199 min, Khasra No 1515 measuring 234-08 sq. meters situated at Up Mohal Behali, Mohal Una, Tehsil and District Una (for short, ‘the suit land’), has been decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. 3. Plaintiff claimed a decree of specific performance of agreement dated 12.9.1988 whereby the predecessor-in-interest of appellants (for short the defendant) Sh. Gurdas Ram had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for total sale consideration of Rs.72,500/-. As per plaintiff, he had paid Rs.20,000/- to defendant at the time of execution of agreement to sell and thereafter on two occasions i.e. on 8.11.1988 and 02.01.1989 additional sums of Rs.7,000/-and Rs.13,000/-, respectively were paid to defendant towards the sale consideration on his asking. It was also the case of plaintiff that further a sum of Rs.5,000/- was received by defendant from father-in-law of plaintiff (Sh. Ramji Dass). The sale deed was to be executed on or before 11.9.1989 and balance of the sale consideration was to be paid by plaintiff to the defendant at the time of execution and registration of sale deed. As per plaintiff, he got issued a notice dated 5.9.1989 through his counsel to defendant calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed in terms of agreement dated 12.9.1988. Plaintiff had shown his readiness and willingness to purchase the suit land. Plaintiff also pleaded his readiness and willingness to perform his part of agreement dated 12.9.1988. 4. In defence, defendant denied having executed any agreement dated 12.9.1988 or any other further document in sequel thereto. He also denied having received any amount as advance or otherwise towards the sale consideration. Defendant raised a plea that his thumb impressions were obtained by the plaintiff by fraud, misrepresentation and taking benefit of illiteracy of defendant. 4. In defence, defendant denied having executed any agreement dated 12.9.1988 or any other further document in sequel thereto. He also denied having received any amount as advance or otherwise towards the sale consideration. Defendant raised a plea that his thumb impressions were obtained by the plaintiff by fraud, misrepresentation and taking benefit of illiteracy of defendant. As per the defendant, he was made to put his thumb impressions on few papers on the pretext that plaintiff would help in procuring bank loan for defendant. It was also submitted that plaintiff had failed to plead his readiness and willingness to perform his part of agreement and was thus dis-entitled from the relief claimed. Defendant further came up with a plea that the suit land was a joint holding of many persons and defendant had 1/4th share in it and hence he could not have either agreed or sold the entire suit land to plaintiff. He further stated that the suit land was already under a mortgage with bank at the time of execution of alleged agreement. 5. Learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action? OPP 3. Whether the defendant entered into agreement to sell the suit land to the plaintiff as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff was and is ready and willing to perform his part of agreement? OPP 5. Whether the agreement is the result of fraud and misrepresentation as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the name of the grand-father of the defendant is given correctly? OPP 7. Whether the defendant is in exclusive hissadari possession of the suit land, if so to what effect? OPP 8. Whether the suit is valued properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP 9. Relief. All issues except issue No. 5 were answered in affirmative and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Plaintiff was directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.32,500/- within one month from the date of judgment and in case of such deposit, the defendant was directed to execute the sale deed of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff within two months. 6. In first appeal also the defendant remained unsuccessful. Learned first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. Hence the present appeal. 7. 6. In first appeal also the defendant remained unsuccessful. Learned first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. Hence the present appeal. 7. On 7.5.2008, the instant appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the learned Appellate Court below has wrongly observed that in his statement DW-2 has admitted his signatures on the Ext.P-3 as an attesting witness and the appeal dismissed on this count, is illegal having been based on wrong finding contrary to the records? 2. Whether the suit of the respondent has wrongly been decreed on the basis of alleged execution of Ext.P-3 to P-5, while execution thereof have not been proved by the plaintiff and there are material contradictions in the plaintiff witnesses and, as such, the impugned judgment and decree are unsustainable in the eyes of law? 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the defendant contended that the plaintiff had miserably failed to prove due execution of the agreement to sell dated 12.9.1988 as also all other ancillary documents. He has assailed the findings of fact returned by learned Courts below being not supported or warranted by material on record and thus perverse. In support of his contention, learned Senior counsel for the defendants submitted that in agreement dated 12.9.1988 one of the witnesses was shown as Subhash Chand son of defendant and in other documents viz. receipts dated 8.11.1988 and 2.1.1989, another son of defendant named Mohan Lal was shown as marginal witness, but neither Subhash Chand nor Mohan Lal have supported the case of plaintiff. It is further submitted that the scribe of agreement dated 12.9.1988, as per his statement made in the Court, was not personally known to the parties to the agreement. Even the scribe of receipt dated 8.11.1988 had made similar version before the Court. On such basis also, it has been asserted that the execution of documents was not proved in accordance with law. 10. On the contrary, learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff has contended that the findings of fact recorded by both the learned Courts below confirmed to the material placed and proved on record and hence, need no interference by this Court. 11. 10. On the contrary, learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff has contended that the findings of fact recorded by both the learned Courts below confirmed to the material placed and proved on record and hence, need no interference by this Court. 11. The written statement filed by defendant if perused in entirety, reveals that the defendant had not disputed his thumb impressions or marks on the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. His defence was that plaintiff had procured his thumb impressions as a result of fraud and misrepresentation. According to the defendant, he was an illiterate person and plaintiff had taken undue advantage of such fact. His further defence was that he had appended the thumb marks on the asking of plaintiff as he required financial assistance from the bank and plaintiff had promised to help him in the pursuit. 12. Further if the examination-in-chief of defendant recorded by learned trial Court is seen, he categorically stated that about eight years back during rainy season, he required money for installation of a tube-well. Defendant made request to plaintiff and his father-in-law (Ramji Dass). They informed defendant that the bank official would visit their home and the defendant should also visit their home in the evening. Defendant accordingly visited the house of plaintiff in the evening and he got 4-5 blank papers thumb marked from defendant. His thumb marks were also obtained on certain registers. He denied having executed any agreement to sell with the plaintiff and also having received any money in lieu of consideration. 13. Noticeably, throughout the trial of the case, defendant did not dispute his thumb marks on agreement to sell dated 12.9.1988 Ext. P-3, receipt dated 8.11.1988 Ext.P-5 and document dated 2.1.1989 Ext.P-4. Once the thumb marks of defendant on documents Exhibits P-3 to P-5 were not disputed, what was required to be proved by plaintiff was that the defendant had appended his thumb impressions on above noted documents cautiously after understanding its contents. For such purpose, plaintiff examined PW-2 Vijay Puri as his witness. PW-2 made a statement on oath that documents Exhibits P-3 and P-5 were scribed by him. He detailed the mode and manner in which the documents were scribed and also stated that the consideration amount mentioned therein was paid by plaintiff to defendant in his presence. 14. For such purpose, plaintiff examined PW-2 Vijay Puri as his witness. PW-2 made a statement on oath that documents Exhibits P-3 and P-5 were scribed by him. He detailed the mode and manner in which the documents were scribed and also stated that the consideration amount mentioned therein was paid by plaintiff to defendant in his presence. 14. To the same effect is the statement of PW-4 Des Raj Rana, who had scribed receipt dated 8.11.1988 Ext.P-5. He also verified before the learned trial Court that the document was scribed by him in presence of the defendant and it was after the document was written that the defendant and others had appended their respective signatures. Merely because both these scribes i.e. PW-2 and PW-4 were not personally known to the parties, will not imply that their statements are to be disbelieved and discarded especially when defendant has failed to bring any material on record to prove his enmity with both the above noted witnesses or they having any ulterior motive to depose against the defendant. 15. Plaintiff also examined PW-3 Narinder Paul S/o Sh. Kewal Krishan Sharma, who had witnessed the execution of receipt Ext.P-5. From the reading of the statement of PW-3, nothing can be found to disbelieve his version. Further, the facts pertaining to execution of documents Exhibits P-3 to P-5 and transactions detailed therein have been verified by the plaintiff himself by appearing as PW-6. In addition, PW-7 Avinash Kumar, who is brother-in-law of plaintiff and is signatory to documents Exhibits P-4 and P-5 has also been examined. PW-1 Ramji Dass (father-in-law of plaintiff) deposed before the Court that defendant had received a sum of Rs.5000/- from him in February, 1989 as part of sale consideration in terms of agreement to sell dated 12.9.1988. The statements of plaintiff’s witnesses have been found to be reliable and trustworthy and after going through the records, I have no reasons to differ from such findings. 16. Plaintiff took the risk of examining the son of defendant Sh. Mohan Lal as PW-5. He denied his signatures on Ext.P-4. Though, request was made by learned counsel for the plaintiff to cross-examine the witness by declaring him hostile, record reveals that he was not cross-examined further on subsequent dates and the order dated 12.12.1991 records that the right to cross-examine such witness was given up by learned counsel for the plaintiff. He denied his signatures on Ext.P-4. Though, request was made by learned counsel for the plaintiff to cross-examine the witness by declaring him hostile, record reveals that he was not cross-examined further on subsequent dates and the order dated 12.12.1991 records that the right to cross-examine such witness was given up by learned counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant himself examined his own son Subhash Chand, who also denied his signatures on document Ext. P-3. Since the dispute was required to be decided on preponderance of evidence, the statements of the sons of defendant were to be weighed against the other evidence on record. Evidently, the sons of defendant had interest in success of the case of defendant and for such reason, they can easily be termed to be interested witnesses. Their versions cannot be taken into consideration without a pinch of salt. 17. As noticed above, both the learned Courts below have returned findings of fact after appreciation of material on record. The oral as well as documentary evidence has duly been considered. The view taken by both the learned Courts below is more plausible view emerging from the material on record and cannot be said to be perverse. 18. In addition to above, it also emerges from the material on record that the version putforth by defendant was not trustworthy. Defendant while appearing as DW-1 stated that about eight years back in rainy season, he had thumb marked certain papers and registers on the asking of plaintiff. He nowhere stated that the plaintiff or any other person had made him to thumb mark documents on more than one dates. Ext. P-3 has been executed on a non-judicial stamp paper dated 12.9.1988, whereas Ext. P-4 is shown to have been issued on 2.1.1989. Thumb marks on both these documents were not specifically denied to be his by defendant. 19. Further, it has not been explained as to why defendant thumb marked the documents simply on the asking of plaintiff or his near relatives viz. father-in-law and brother-in-law, when they were not intimately known to defendant. It is the case of the defendant himself that he had no close affinity with plaintiff or his family members. In such circumstances, it is hard to believe that defendant would have put his thumb mark on more than one document without knowing its contents. father-in-law and brother-in-law, when they were not intimately known to defendant. It is the case of the defendant himself that he had no close affinity with plaintiff or his family members. In such circumstances, it is hard to believe that defendant would have put his thumb mark on more than one document without knowing its contents. Another fact which needs notice is that defendant has not denied the receipt of notice Ext.P-1. In written statement, defendant submitted that the notice served by plaintiff was illegal, baseless, wrong and vague. It was not his case that he had not received the notice. It being so, it is again beyond comprehension that having received notice Ext.P-1, defendant had not made any effort to reply or rebut its contents. Lastly, the version of defendant also becomes suspicious from the circumstance that the defendant having thumb marked the documents in the hope of securing a loan from the bank, had never bothered to know about the fate of loan for which he had thumb marked the documents. It is also not the case of defendant that some loan was disbursed to him after the execution of aforesaid documents. 20. Substantial question of law No.2 as noted above is decided accordingly. The findings returned by learned Courts below while upholding the due execution of documents Exts. P-3 to P-5, are found to be warranted by the material on record and are accordingly affirmed. 21. Learned counsel for the defendant had also referred to the finding returned by learned first Appellate Court in para-15 of its judgment, to assert that the findings so recorded are against the proved facts on record. It is submitted that DW-2 Subhash Chand had categorically denied his signatures on document Ext.P-3 and in absence of any evidence to contrary, there was no material before learned first Appellate Court to hold that the son of defendant Subhash Chand had witnessed the execution of Ext.P-3. The findings so recorded by learned first Appellate Court are reproduced as under: “15. Falsity, because the evidence led by the plaintiff is demonstrative of Subhash Chand, who is son of the defendant and who admittedly in his statement as DW-2 is “B.A. Pass”, having signed the original agreement to sell Ext.P-3 as an attesting witness. The findings so recorded by learned first Appellate Court are reproduced as under: “15. Falsity, because the evidence led by the plaintiff is demonstrative of Subhash Chand, who is son of the defendant and who admittedly in his statement as DW-2 is “B.A. Pass”, having signed the original agreement to sell Ext.P-3 as an attesting witness. The plaintiff no doubt is illiterate, but his said son, who is literate and was accompanying his father at the material time, would not have appended his signature to the agreement to sell Ext.P-3 as an attestor thereto nor would he have allowed his father to thumb mark the same had the document been dubious.” 22. The above contention raised on behalf of learned counsel for the defendant also deserves to be rejected for the reason that the findings returned by learned first Appellate Court in para-15 of the judgment could not be assessed in isolation without going through the contents of preceding paragraphs of the judgment. Learned first Appellate Court had assessed the entire material and it was in that context that by disbelieving the versions of sons of defendant, the findings in aforesaid manner were recorded. In any case, on account of aforesaid findings, defendant cannot succeed as the evidence on record overwhelming suggest an inference in favour of the case of plaintiff. Substantial question of law No.1 is accordingly answered. 23. In result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Judgment and decree dated 21.12.2006 passed by learned District Judge Una in Civil Appeal No. 134 of 1999 and judgment and decree dated 25.5.1999 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Una in Civil Suit No. 163 of 1989 are affirmed. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.