JUDGMENT 1. Defendants in the suit filed this appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The sole plaintiff is the respondent here. 2. This appeal has been coming up for hearing before admission. Sri K.Subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for appellants and Smt. G.Manasa, the learned counsel representing Sri K.R.Srinivas, the learned counsel for respondent submitted arguments. 3. The following facts leading to the present appeal are required to be noticed: (a) O.S.No.143 of 1999 was a suit filed for specific performance of agreement for sale. It was filed by Sri Pyla Venkata Ramana as against Sri Gatta Ramulu @ Ramunaidu. During the pendency of the suit before learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chodavaram the sole defendant died and thereafter his legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.2 to 7. During his lifetime the sole defendant/defendant No.1 filed his written statement. Subsequently, the impleaded legal representatives through fifth defendant filed an additional written statement while the rest of the defendants filed a memo adopting the same. Record would further indicate that on the application of the legal representatives learned trial Court permitted the written statement of late defendant No.1 amended. The purport of the said amendment is to substitute the name of Sri Gatta Appa Rao with the name of Sri Bantu Appala Naidu. (b) In the plaint it was urged that Gatta Ramulu was the owner of Ac.0.30 cents of immovable property in patta No.551 in Survey No.320-13 in Gowripatnam Village. On 26.03.1999 he executed an agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff. Sale consideration was fixed at Rs.1,350/- per cent. On the date of agreement for sale plaintiff paid and Sri Gatta Ramulu received Rs.6,000/- towards part of the sale consideration. By the terms of the agreement the plaintiff had to pay the balance sale consideration within one month and get the sale deed registered by Sri Gatta Ramulu. A week days after this document, plaintiff went to the first defendant and offered to pay the balance sale consideration but he was dodging it. On enquiries plaintiff had come to know the ill-intentions of Sri Gatta Ramulu in his efforts to alienate the property to others. Thereafter, plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 08.04.1999 expressing his readiness and wiliness to have the registered sale deed and offered balance sale consideration. Sri Gatta Ramulu received the same but kept silent. On enquiries plaintiff had come to know the ill-intentions of Sri Gatta Ramulu in his efforts to alienate the property to others. Thereafter, plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 08.04.1999 expressing his readiness and wiliness to have the registered sale deed and offered balance sale consideration. Sri Gatta Ramulu received the same but kept silent. In those circumstances, suit was filed seeking for specific performance and in the alternative for refund of money along with interest. (c) Sri Gatta Ramulu/defendant No.1 filed a written statement and denied his intention to sell the property to the plaintiff and denied the execution of agreement for sale and stated that the plaint alleged agreement for sale is a fabricated document. He pleaded that he executed an agreement for sale dated 15.03.1999 in favour of Sri Gatta Appa Rao who offered to purchase this property at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per cent and accordingly he received an advance sale consideration of Rs.18,000/-. That the property was still in possession of Sri Gatta Appa Rao from whom originally this defendant purchased the property and to whom he owes Rs.16,000/-towards a mortgage debt. Since the plaintiff being a Constable was high-handedly demanding him to sell this property to him and since this defendant refused to do it, the plaintiff has come up with this false suit based on a fabricated document and sought dismissal of the suit. (d) The written statement filed by the legal representatives was also to the same effect. 4. On those rival pleadings, the learned trial Court settled the following issues and additional issues for its consideration: 1. Whether the sale agreement dt: 26.03.1999 is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract of sale? 3. To what relief? Additional Issues: 1. Whether the sale agreement is not hit by the provisions of Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act? 2. Whether the Bantu Appala Naidu is a necessary party to the suit? 5. In proof of their respective cases, plaintiff testified as PW.1 and attestor to the agreement for sale testified as PW.2 and the scribe of the agreement for sale testified as PW.3. The suit referred agreement for sale was marked as Ex.A.1 and the demand notice got issued by plaintiff is marked as Ex.A.2. 5. In proof of their respective cases, plaintiff testified as PW.1 and attestor to the agreement for sale testified as PW.2 and the scribe of the agreement for sale testified as PW.3. The suit referred agreement for sale was marked as Ex.A.1 and the demand notice got issued by plaintiff is marked as Ex.A.2. As against such evidence, the fifth defendant gave evidence as DW.1 and got examined another witness as DW.2. No documents were exhibited for defendants. 6. After considering the entire evidence on record and after considering the rival contentions on both sides, the learned trial Court believed the version of plaintiff and disbelieved the version of defendants and it found that Ex.A.1-agreement for sale was executed by late defendant No.1 and no proof contrary to it was available before it. Finally, it decreed the suit for primary relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff. 7. Aggrieved defendants preferred A.S.No.6 of 2007. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram heard that appeal and considered the various contentions raised by the parties and formulated the following questions for its consideration: 1. Whether the agreement of sale is true, valid or fabricated and forged? 2. Whether the plaintiff is disentitled to seek for specific performance of contract for non-compliance of the conditions in the agreement for sale? 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Bantu Appala Naidu as a party? 4. Whether the suit is hit by the provisions of Registration Act and Indian Stamp Act? 5. Whether the decree and judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside? 8. After thorough and exhaustive discussion of oral and documentary evidence, the learned appellate Court found no merit with the contentions raised before it and it agreed with the findings rendered by the trial Court and consequently, it dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. 9. Aggrieved defendants preferred this second appeal. Sub-Section (3) of Section 100 C.P.C. commands the appellants to precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. In the memorandum of appeal filed before this Court, at para No.9 the appellants have stated their version of the substantial questions of law as below: 1. Whether the agreement of sale is true, valid, forged and fabricated? 2. Sub-Section (3) of Section 100 C.P.C. commands the appellants to precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. In the memorandum of appeal filed before this Court, at para No.9 the appellants have stated their version of the substantial questions of law as below: 1. Whether the agreement of sale is true, valid, forged and fabricated? 2. When the appellant purchased the property from Bantu Appala Naidu with a condition to reconvey the same to him as and when the 1st defendant/1st appellant intended to alienate the property and accordingly executed the agreement of sale by receiving Rs.18,000/- as advance and agreed to sell the land at Rs.1,500/- per cent, and as such Court below ought to have dismissed the suit. 3. Whether the burden is on the defendant to prove that the agreement of sale marked as Ex.A.1 is true and valid? 4. Whether the appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit basing on the weakness of the case of appellant/defendant, but not on the stringent of the case of the plaintiff/respondent herein? 5. When the appellate Court found minor contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is bound to excuse when villagers appears as witnesses, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram ought to have allowed the appeal. 6. When the plaintiff/respondent failed to plead and approve that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract and as such the plaintiff/respondent is not entitled to seek for specific performance of contract. 10. The occasion to mention the above purported questions of law are to be noticed. At the trial the plaintiff produced Ex.A.1-agreement for sale dated 26.03.1999. According to plaintiff, the late first defendant was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. That aspect of the matter was never disputed by late first defendant or his legal representatives. The evidence on record indicated and the terms of Ex.A.1 would show that late first defendant agreed to sell his property and plaintiff agreed to purchase it and a part of the sale consideration was paid and acknowledged as evidenced by Ex.A.1 itself and the balance was to be paid by the plaintiff within one month. The evidence on record indicated and the terms of Ex.A.1 would show that late first defendant agreed to sell his property and plaintiff agreed to purchase it and a part of the sale consideration was paid and acknowledged as evidenced by Ex.A.1 itself and the balance was to be paid by the plaintiff within one month. The pleaded case of the plaintiff and the oral evidence of PW.1 further bolstered by Ex.A.2-notice dated 08.04.1999 shows that within 14 days from the date of agreement for sale plaintiff had issued the notice offering the balance sale consideration demanding the late first defendant to execute the registered sale deed. There was no response issued by late first defendant to Ex.A.2-notice. He only contended that plaintiff being a Constable fabricated such document. To overcome that plaintiff got examined the attestor as PW.2 and the scribe as PW.3. Both the Courts below discussed their evidence at length and concluded that they are witnesses of honesty and were elders in the village and there was nothing to suspect their credibility and their evidence on material facts remained intact and therefore, believed execution of Ex.A.1. Both the Courts below also recorded a finding that if really late first defendant believed that Ex.A.1 was a forged document, he would have at least taken steps to send the document referred to a handwriting expert for obtaining an opinion and he did not do that. The fact that he did not issue a reply notice to Ex.A.2 was another circumstance considered against late first defendant. Both the Courts below also recorded that late first defendant did not even produce his otherwise undisputed signatures to enable the Court to have comparison of them as against signature attributed to him on Ex.A.1. It was after such thorough discussion of evidence, both the Courts below concluded that Ex.A.1 was proved. 11. Both the Courts below then answered the contentions of the defendants. They observed that defendants though contended about an agreement for sale in favour of Sri G.Appa Rao or Sri Bantu Appala Naidu did not file such agreement for sale before the Court. Thus, what was pleaded was not proved at all. They also observed that the contention of late first defendant that he had mortgaged the property with the proposed vendee but the same was not substantiated by production of a copy of the mortgage deed. Thus, what was pleaded was not proved at all. They also observed that the contention of late first defendant that he had mortgaged the property with the proposed vendee but the same was not substantiated by production of a copy of the mortgage deed. They further recorded a finding that defendants did not even choose to have the evidence of the mortgagee Sri Bantu Appala Naidu. After making such thorough discussion of facts, evidence and circumstances, both the Courts below negatived all the contentions raised by the defendants. 12. It is in the light of those facts and circumstances, now one has to see what is sought to be contended before this Court as substantial questions of law. A reading of the proposed substantial questions of law do show that they are only questions of fact and none of them referred to any point of law. In Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal, (2000) 1 SCC 434 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that there are two situations in which interference with findings of fact is permissible under Section 100 C.P.C. The first occasion is when material or relevant evidence is not considered which, if considered, would have led to an opposite conclusion. The other situation is where a finding has been arrived at by the Courts below by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence which if it was omitted, an opposite conclusion was possible. In either of the above situations only, a substantial question of law can arise. On considering the submissions of learned counsel on both sides and on considering the material on record, this Court holds that the case at hand does not fall within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited ruling. The submission of the learned counsel for appellants is that the scribe/PW.3 in his evidence stated that when he was preparing the document the attestors were at a tea stall and that late first defendant was not present while he was preparing the document. According to learned counsel, this evidence of PW.3 was not properly appreciated by the Courts below and that resulted in injustice. For two reasons this contention has to be negatived. The trial Court and the first appellate Court are Courts of facts and their conclusions on facts bind this Court. Misappreciation of evidence itself is not a substantial question of law. For two reasons this contention has to be negatived. The trial Court and the first appellate Court are Courts of facts and their conclusions on facts bind this Court. Misappreciation of evidence itself is not a substantial question of law. In that view of the matter, this contention has to be negatived. Even otherwise when one sees the evidence of PW.3 and how it was analysed by both the Courts below, this very PW.3 stated that for preparation of Ex.A.1-agreement for sale instructions were given by both parties and fees was paid by both parties to the document. While he was preparing the document whether parties were just by his side or they were away from there has no bearing since after completion of the preparation of the document, the parties on both sides had come together and only after having accepted the contents therein Ex.A.1 was signed by late first defendant as stated by PW.3. Therefore, there was absolutely no misappreciation of evidence whatsoever. The appellants' contention is about agreement for sale with Sri Bantu Appala Naidu was ignored by the Courts below. There is no merit in this. Having stated about a written agreement for sale it was up to the propounders to produce it and they failed to do it and they failed to examine Sri Bantu Appal Naidu in support of their contention. Thus, a fact that was concluded on evidence is sought to be raised without any merit. Learned counsel for respondent submits that on 22.07.2011, honouring the decrees, the registered sale deed was executed in pursuance of Ex.A.1 and only to prolong the litigation the appellants have been canvassing the arguments before this Court. 13. Having considered the submissions on both sides, this Court finds that appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law. Therefore, this appeal cannot be admitted. 14. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2009 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram in A.S.No.6 of 2007 stands confirmed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.