JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 25.11.2019 passed by the learned District Judge-VIII, Giridih in Civil Appeal No.30 of 2015 whereby and where under, the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 65 of 1999 with a prayer for specific performance of contract. 4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff sold the suit land on 21.04.1992 to the defendant with the condition that the defendant shall reconvey the suit land within the time period of seven years from the date of sale; on return of sale amount of Rs.5,000/-by the plaintiff to the defendant. A deed of agreement was also entered into between the parties in this regard, on the same day i.e. on 21.04.1992. Within the period of seven years the plaintiffs approached the defendant several times and requested him to reconvey the suit land but the defendant kept on avoiding the same, on one pretext or the other. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit. 5. The defendant besides challenging the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds admitted the purchase of the suit land and also the agreement for reconveying the suit land, as pleaded by the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that he did not receive any notice within the stipulated time from the plaintiff for reconveyance of the suit land or to take Rs. 5000/-from the plaintiff and the plaintiff never approached the defendant nor requested for execution of the sale deed hence, there is no cause of action for the suit. 6. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court settled the following seven issues:- (I) Whether the suit in its present form is maintainable? (II) Is there is any cause of action for the suit? (III) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (IV) Whether the plaintiff has performed his part of the contract in respect of the agreement? (V) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit for specific performance of the contract? (VI) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for khas possession of the suit land? (VII) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief? 7. (IV) Whether the plaintiff has performed his part of the contract in respect of the agreement? (V) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit for specific performance of the contract? (VI) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for khas possession of the suit land? (VII) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief? 7. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined altogether three witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked Ext. 1 and Ext.2. On the other hand from the side of the defendant, the defendant examined altogether two witnesses but the defendant did not adduce any documentary evidence. 8. The learned trial court first took up issue nos. IV to VI together and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing that the plaintiff has performed his part of the contract therefore, is entitled for the specific performance of contract and also to obtain possession thereof. Hence, answered the issue nos. IV to VI in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial court next took up issue nos. I to III together and as the defendant though took such pleas but did not adduce any evidence in the record in respect of these contentions; the learned trial court answered the issue nos. I to III in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Lastly, the learned trial court took up issue no. VII and held that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief and decreed the suit on contest with costs to the effect that the defendant on receipt Rs.5,000/-from the plaintiff shall execute the sale deed within 30 days from the date of decree. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the defendant-appellant filed Civil Appeal No.30 of 2015 in the court of Principal District Judge, Giridih which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree. 10. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the defendant-appellant filed Civil Appeal No.30 of 2015 in the court of Principal District Judge, Giridih which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree. 10. The learned first appellate court on the basis of the materials in the record and submissions made before it, made independent appreciation of the evidence in record and in view of the admission by the defendant of the agreement of reconveyance, the learned first appellate court considered that the only question for determination in the appeal is : “Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?” 11. The learned first appellate court considered that the defendant has admitted that the plaintiff issued the notice to the defendant calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed on taking Rs.5,000/-but only denied receiving the said notice in time but the defendant could not come with any specific case as to when he received the notice and the learned first appellate court also considered that denial on the part of the defendant, of the pleading of the plaintiff to the effect that plaintiff all along willing to perform his part of the contract; was not direct and specific and after considering the evidence in the record concurred with the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding arrived at by both the courts below was not in accordance with law and against the weight of evidence in record. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that as in plaint, it has not been mentioned as to in whose presence the plaintiff tendered the money to the defendant and as the oral evidence put forth by the plaintiff in respect of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed after formulating appropriate substantial question of law. 13. 13. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is the admitted case of the defendant that there was an agreement for reconveyance of the sale effected by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant upon receiving Rs.5,000/-within seven years from 21.04.1992 when such reconveyance agreement was made. It is admitted case of the defendant that the plaintiff issued a notice calling upon the defendant to receive Rs.5,000/-and execute a sale deed reconvening the right, title and interest of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. It is also admitted case of the defendant that the defendant received a legal notice on behalf of the plaintiff but the defendant took an evasive plea that he did not receive the legal notice within time but the defendant failed to mention as to on which date the defendant received the legal notice issued by the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to execute this reconveyance sale deed; upon taking Rs. 5000/-. Hence, keeping in view that the evidence put forth by the plaintiff that on several occasions the plaintiff approached the defendant to receive Rs.5,000/-, this Court is of the considered view that as the courts below have not ignored or excluded the admissible evidence regarding relevant materials nor taken into consideration in admissible evidence nor the finding of the court below can be termed so outrageously defies the logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse. 14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 15. Accordingly, this second appeal being without any merit is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs. 16. Let the copy of the Judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith.