JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. 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 28.05.2016 passed by the learned District Judge-VI, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 27 of 2015 whereby and where under, the learned first appellate court by a judgment of concurrence has dismissed the appeal on contest. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 106 of 2004 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-VII, Dhanbad with a prayer for specific performance of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants. 4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the original defendant was the owner of the suit premises. She inducted the plaintiff as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.500/- for a period of seven years. The agreement of lease was executed by the original defendant on 15.12.1997 and since then the plaintiff occupied the premises as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.28,000/- on 15.12.1997 to the defendant as a security money for the said premises which was to be refunded to the plaintiff without any interest after the expiry of the tenancy period. During the period of tenancy the original defendant wanted to sell and transfer the premises at a total consideration of Rs.1,80,000/- with an understanding that the security money of Rs.28,000/- would be adjusted in the consideration money fixed for the shop premises. The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.11,000/- on 21.12.1998 in continuation of the agreement and the plaintiff went on paying money as part consideration money to the original defendant on different dates. The defendant acknowledged the receipt of the payment. The plaintiff claimed to have paid altogether Rs.1,41,000/- against the consideration money of Rs.1,80,000/- in respect of the premises. The plaintiff and the original defendant mutually agreed that the balance consideration amount of Rs.39,000/- will be paid by the plaintiff to the original defendant at the time of registration and execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff requested the defendant on several occasions to receive the balance consideration amount of Rs.39,000/- and to execute and register the sale deed but as the defendant avoided the same, hence the suit was filed. The plaintiff requested the defendant on several occasions to receive the balance consideration amount of Rs.39,000/- and to execute and register the sale deed but as the defendant avoided the same, hence the suit was filed. Before filing the suit the defendant instituted C.P. Case No. 1154 of 2004 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad implicating the plaintiff and his father. The plaintiff always being ready and willing to pay the balance consideration amount of Rs.39,000/-. 5. In her written statement, the defendant-Laxmi Devi challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds. After her death her son and daughter were substituted and they adopted the written statement filed by her. The defendants pleaded that the documents which is claimed to be the agreement for sale was in fact a forged document, which was prepared for the purpose of the suit. The defendants denied receipt of any consideration or any advance amount from the plaintiff. The defendants requested the plaintiff to collect Rs.28,000/- the security amount, from the defendants, on any day but the plaintiff did not turn up to collect the said security money. The defendants specifically pleaded that all the receipts purported to have been issued by the defendants are manufactured and forged. 6. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court settled the following eight issues: (I) Is the suit is maintainable in its present form? (II) Is there is any cause of action for the present suit? (III) Whether suit is barred by principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? (IV) Whether suit is barred by provision of specific performance of contract? (V) Whether the agreement to sale dated 28/12/2001 is legal and executable by law? (VI) Whether there is readiness and willingness of plaintiff in performing his part of contract? (VII) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as claimed? (VIII) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to? 7. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined altogether five witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked Ext. 1 to Ext.7. On the other hand from the side of the defendants, the defendants examined altogether five witnesses and also proved the documents which has been marked Ext. A to C/a. 8. The learned trial court first took up issue no. 1 to Ext.7. On the other hand from the side of the defendants, the defendants examined altogether five witnesses and also proved the documents which has been marked Ext. A to C/a. 8. The learned trial court first took up issue no. V and after considering the evidence in the record, as it appeared to the learned trial court that the plaintiff has prepared the document of agreement for sale and receipts by obtaining the signature of the original defendant, which was put by the original defendant to be used as receipt; regarding payment of rent. The agreement is on a plain paper which is contrary to the claim of the plaintiff in his statement on oath as a witness that the agreement was entered into by writing on a non-judicial stamp paper. It appeared to the learned trial court that Ext.1 which is a purported agreement for sale is a forged one hence, the same is not sustainable in law and decided the issue no. V against the plaintiff. The learned trial court thereafter took up issue no. VI and came to the conclusion that as the purported agreement for sale is not legally sustainable hence, it is irrelevant whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract on the basis of the illegal agreement and decided the same against the plaintiff. The learned trial court then took up issue no. III and IV together and disposed of the same as not pressed, by the parties hence, decided the same against the plaintiff. The learned trial court lastly took up issue nos. I, II, VII and VIII together and concluded that there is no legal relationship between the plaintiff and the original defendant and the agreement for sale is not sustainable in law. Hence, the plaintiff has no cause of action and the suit is not maintainable in its present form and the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief prayed for and decided the said issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 27 of 2015 in the court of Principal District Judge, Dhanbad 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 plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 27 of 2015 in the court of Principal District Judge, Dhanbad 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 before it, formulated the following two points for determination: “(i) Whether there was a valid executable agreement to sale dated 28/12/2001 and 19/02/2003 between plaintiff and defendant with respect to suit property? (ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by ld. court below require and interference? 11. The learned first appellate court first took up the point for determination no. (i). The learned first appellate court considered the specific pleading of the defendants that the agreement for sale is a forged one and the defendants filed a criminal case in this regard; of course in which the plaintiff was acquitted. The learned first appellate court took note of the fact that the purported agreement for sale was not filed along with plaint and the same was filed in the court only after the original defendant filed her written statement and issues were framed. So till 27.06.2005 when the said document for the first time filed in court the defendants had no knowledge about the document. From the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff it appeared to the learned first appellate court that the place and manner of execution of the document was not proved rather it was inferred by the learned first appellate court from the evidence in the record that the blank paper signed by Laxmi Devi the original defendant for the purpose of rent receipts was used by the plaintiff, as a document and evidence for agreement of sale and receipt of amount towards part payment of consideration of the said sale. The learned first appellate court also took note of the fact that had there been any agreement for sale between the parties, there would have been negotiation between the parties; instead of filing the Eviction Suit No. 72 of 2004 by the original defendant and went on to hold that the purported agreement of sale between the parties and the connected documents are forged and manufactured documents and answered the point for determination no. (i) against the plaintiff. (i) against the plaintiff. Thereafter, the learned first appellate court took up the point for determination no. (ii) and considered that forged and fabricated documents in the shape of agreement for sale does not give the status of concluded contract to the document in question and considered that the same cannot be enforced in the suit for specific performance. So there was no necessity to decide the plea of readiness and willingness to perform the contract and concluded that there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. 12. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant that the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below has been passed without appreciation of the evidence in the record. It is next submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant that both the courts below has failed to consider that it is the admitted case of Laxmi Devi that she signed the documents and in view of such admission both the courts below ought to have held that there is a concluded contract of agreement for sale between the plaintiff and the defendant and ought to have allowed the prayer of the plaintiff. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant that the court below came to an erroneous conclusion and made a third case that the value of the suit premises is Rs.54,30,000/- which is beyond the pleading therefore, it is not permissible to be considered by the courts below. 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 decreed after formulating appropriate substantial question of law. 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 a settled principle of law that the finding of fact of the learned first appellate court ought not be interfered with by the second appellate court in exercise of the power under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure unless there is perversity in such finding of fact as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gurvachan Kaur and Others v. Salikram (Dead) through LRs. (2010) 15 SCC 530 , paragraph no. (2010) 15 SCC 530 , paragraph no. 10 of which reads as under: “10. It is settled law that in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court which is the final court of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse. This being the position, it must be held that the High Court was not justified in reversing the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court on the issues of existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and default committed by the latter in payment of rent.” 14. Perversity so far as it relates to interfering with the finding of facts by exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 and 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding the relevant materials or by taking into consideration the irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies the logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eyes of law. Similarly if the finding of the court is based on no evidence or evidence, which is thoroughly unreliable or the evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person, would have arrived at those findings then the findings may be said to be perverse as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 216 , Para 28 of which reads as under: “28. If a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eye of the law. If the findings of the Court are based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable or evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings, then the findings may be said to be perverse. If the findings of the Court are based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable or evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings, then the findings may be said to be perverse. Further if the findings are either ipse dixit of the Court or based on conjecture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and thus, stands vitiated. [Vide Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan, (2010) 11 SCC 483 : AIR 2010 SC 2685 ].” (Emphasis supplied) The same has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharatha Matha and Another vs. R. Vijaya Renganathan and Others, (2010) 11 SCC 483 and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.N. Nagarajappa and Others vs. H. Narasimha Reddy, 2021 SCC Online SC 694. 15. Now coming to the facts of the case, this Court finds that the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by both the courts below that the plaintiff failed to establish that purported agreement for sale is in fact the agreement for sale is not based on any inadmissible evidence nor such finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding any admissible evidence. 16. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no perversity involved in such finding of fact arrived at by both the courts below hence, there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 17. Accordingly, this second appeal being without any merit is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs. 18. Let the copy of the Judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith.