JUDGMENT : Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 02.09.2010 in A.S.No.74 of 2006, on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 30.12.2005 in O.S.No.59 of 1996, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. 2. The 1 st appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are defendants in O.S.No.59 of 1996, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. During the pendency of the appeal, the 1 st appellant died and his legal representative is brought on record as 2 nd appellant. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.59 of 1996, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, with a prayer for specific performance of contract of sale, dated 07.03.1994 and direct the defendants to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property and register the same and also for costs. 4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed A.S.No.74 of 2006, on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali. The learned XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.59 of 1996, is as follows: Defendants 2 to 5 are children of 1 st defendant. 1 st defendant borrowed Rs.25,000/- from Annabattuni Rajyam, who is the mother of plaintiff, on 16.05.1990. Both defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed a promissory note. As the amount was not paid, a legal notice was issued to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 22.02.1993. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 received the notice and made part payments, leaving balance of Rs.10,000/- by 12.05.1993. A cheque was issued for the said amount on Indian Bank, Tenali in favour of Annabattuni Babu Rao. As the amount was not paid, a legal notice was issued to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 22.02.1993. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 received the notice and made part payments, leaving balance of Rs.10,000/- by 12.05.1993. A cheque was issued for the said amount on Indian Bank, Tenali in favour of Annabattuni Babu Rao. Subsequently, 2 nd defendant represented that he would deposit the cheque amount after obtaining loan from Andhra Bank, Tenali. Waiting for sufficient time Babu Rao presented the cheque on 08.11.1993 and the said cheque was bounced for want of sufficient funds. Babu Rao got issued a registered notice on 22.11.1993 which was returned as continuously absent at the address and not in the village. Again notice was issued but it was also returned with the same endorsement by 07.03.1994. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were indebted to the plaintiff’s father and mother and his senior paternal uncle under promotes, dated 23.06.1993 and 23.07.1993 in favour of plaintiff’s senior paternal uncle. There was pressure for clearance of debts, 1 st defendant agreed to execute a sale contract in favour of plaintiff and accordingly, on 07.03.1994 all the defendants executed a stamped sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff for schedule property. Out of the sale consideration of Rs.60,000/- went in discharge of the debts due under the above mentioned pronotes and the balance of the sale consideration of Rs.19,750/- was agreed to be paid with interest at 24% per annum on the date of registration of regular sale deed. Vendors delivered possession of the schedule land covered Ac.1-45 cents in D.No.106/2 of Amarthaluru Village on the date of contract of sale. It was agreed under the contract that if there is a delay in execution of sale deed by the vendors, the purchaser need not pay interest on the balance of sale consideration. In spite of approaching the 1 st defendant, he did not execute a sale deed, therefore, notice, dated 14.08.1994 was issued. It was received by defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, but they did not give any reply. Hence, the suit for specific performance is filed. 7. Pending the suit, 1 st defendant died. Defendant Nos.6 to 8 are surviving representatives in addition to defendant Nos.2 to 5 and they remained exparte. It was received by defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, but they did not give any reply. Hence, the suit for specific performance is filed. 7. Pending the suit, 1 st defendant died. Defendant Nos.6 to 8 are surviving representatives in addition to defendant Nos.2 to 5 and they remained exparte. The 2 nd defendant filed written statement before the trial Court and the same was adopted by the defendant Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows: They denied the execution of agreement of sale, dated 07.03.1994 and also denied the possession alleged by the plaintiff. The 1 st defendant used to borrow amounts for his family expenses from Annabattuni Babu Rao, paternal uncle of plaintiff, when the amount due was Rs.20,000/-, Babu Rao obtained contract of sale, dated 16.05.1995 from Ananda Rao and his wife Sowbhagyamma as if they agreed to sell their daba house to him for Rs.26,000/-, as if he paid Rs.25,000/- as advance and has to pay Rs.1,000/-. Babu Rao promised to cancel the agreement whenever 1 st defendant pays that amount. Having confidence in Babu Rao, Ananda Rao and Sowbhagyamma executed a contract of sale and handed over the original title deed to Babu Rao, on that day Babu Rao obtained a pronote for Rs.25,000/- from 1 st defendant in his name with antedate. Babu Rao got issued a registered notice, dated 22.04.1992 through his Advocate both to Ananda Rao and his wife demanding them to execute a regular sale deed. Thereafter 2 nd defendant made part payment of Rs.10,000/- to Babu Rao. After the death of Ananda Rao on 20.10.1992, Babu Rao obtained signatures of all the defendants on various stamp papers without writing anything thereon and signatures of defendant Nos.1 and 2 on several pronote forms because 2 nd defendant failed to deposit amount in the Bank to honour the cheque issued by him in discharging the debt due to Babu Rao. The 2 nd defendant believes that Babu Rao fabricated suit contract of sale on stamp paper in which he obtained signatures of all defendants. After receiving lawyer notice, 2 nd defendant approached Babu Rao and promised to return the pronotes and other papers whenever he received balance due amount. The 2 nd defendant believes that Babu Rao fabricated suit contract of sale on stamp paper in which he obtained signatures of all defendants. After receiving lawyer notice, 2 nd defendant approached Babu Rao and promised to return the pronotes and other papers whenever he received balance due amount. Taking advantage of the same, Babu Rao demanded the defendants to pay Rs.15,000/- for which 2 nd defendant requested to settle the transaction by receiving Rs.5,000/-.Therefore, Babu Rao bore grudge and got filed the suit. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the contract of sale, dated 07.03.1994 is true, valid document and whether the defendants delivered possession of the same to the plaintiff? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for? (3) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.21 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 10. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.74 of 2006, on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, wherein, the following points came up for consideration: 1) Whether the suit agreement of sale is proved? 2) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract? 11. The learned XI Additional District Judge, Tenali i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff by confirming decree and judgment of the trial Court. Felt aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff in O.S.No.59 of 1996 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. Felt aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff in O.S.No.59 of 1996 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. On hearing both side counsels at the time of admission of the appeal, on 08.04.2011, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, framed the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether courts below are correct in arriving at a conclusion that the Plaintiff/Appellant is not ready and willing to perform his part of contract without considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record including Ex.A.1, Ex.A.4, Ex.A.7 and Ex.A.10? (2) Whether the courts below are correct in dismissing the suit though none of the defendants failed to enter into witness box and produce any documentary evidence in support of their contentions? (3) Whether the decree and judgment of the courts below are not liable to be set aside on the ground of perversity as they failed to consider the effect of evidence available on record? (4) Whether the Plaintiff/Appellant is not entitled for the relief of specific performance in the circumstances of the case? 13. Heard Dr. Malladi Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and none appeared for the respondents. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that by came to a wrong conclusion without appreciating the evidence on record in a proper manner, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit and the said decree and judgment is confirmed by the learned First Appellate Judge. He would further contend that both the Courts below came to a wrong conclusion and dismissed the suit and that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by both the courts below. 15. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence. In a case of Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh , [ AIR 1993 SC 398 ], the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court which was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature.” In a case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar , [ AIR 1999 SC 471 ], the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the First Appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.” 16. The plaintiff approached the trial Court for seeking relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 07.03.1994. As per the recitals of agreement of sale under Ex.A.21, the property is a self-acquired property of the 1 st defendant. Further the recitals under Ex.A.21 agreement of sale shows that no consideration was passed directly either to the 1 st defendant or other defendants from the plaintiff. In Ex.A.21 agreement of sale, it was specifically recited that to discharge the debts under the promissory notes Ex.A.16 to Ex.A.18, dated 15.05.1993, 25.03.1993 and 23.06.1993 in favouar of Appa Rao, Rajyam and Babu Rao respectively said to have been executed by 2 nd defendant. An amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid by the plaintiff directly to the creditors under the aforesaid promissory notes Ex.A.16 to Ex.A.18. Admittedly, no amount was paid by the plaintiff either to the 1 st defendant or other defendants under Ex.A.21 agreement of sale. The creditors under Ex.A.16 to Ex.A.18 Appa Rao, Rajyam and Babu Rao are not parties to the contract of sale and they are also not the attestors or scribe of Ex.A.21 agreement of sale. It is quite surprised to note that all the aforesaid promissory notes are in the custody of the creditors. The creditors under Ex.A.16 to Ex.A.18 Appa Rao, Rajyam and Babu Rao are not parties to the contract of sale and they are also not the attestors or scribe of Ex.A.21 agreement of sale. It is quite surprised to note that all the aforesaid promissory notes are in the custody of the creditors. If really any amount is discharged under Ex.A.16 to Ex.A.18 promissory notes by the plaintiff, the said promissory notes have to be returned to the defendants, but surprisingly, those promissory notes are with the creditors which is also one of the strong circumstances to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff and also passing of consideration under Ex.A.21 agreement of sale. 17. The suit is based on Ex.A.21 agreement of sale. There is no whisper in Ex.A.21 agreement of sale that the defendants agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for Rs.79,750/- and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same. Admittedly, no advance amount is paid by the plaintiff to the defendants towards part payment of sale consideration directly to the defendants. As per the own case of the plaintiff the plaint schedule property is the self-acquired property of the 1 st defendant but there is no explanation on the part of the plaintiff why he had obtained the signatures of the children of 1 st defendant on Ex.A.21 agreement of sale. P.W.4 and P.W.5 who are the attestors to the alleged Ex.A.21 agreement of sale stated in their evidence that cash of Rs.60,000/- was directly paid to the 1 st defendant by the plaintiff on the date of Ex.A.21 under Ex.A.21 agreement of sale. But, as per the recitals in Ex.A.21 agreement of sale, an amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid to the creditors under Ex.A.16 to Ex.A.18 promissory notes directly by the plaintiff. Therefore, the aforesaid statement of the attestors i.e., P.W.4 and P.W.5 are not at all supported with the recitals incorporated in Ex.A.21 agreement of sale. In the plaint it was specifically recited the possession was delivered to the plaintiff under Ex.A.21 agreement of sale. There was a clear admission of the plaintiff in his evidence in cross examination itself that the possession of the plaint schedule property was not delivered to him. In the plaint it was specifically recited the possession was delivered to the plaintiff under Ex.A.21 agreement of sale. There was a clear admission of the plaintiff in his evidence in cross examination itself that the possession of the plaint schedule property was not delivered to him. The recitals in the plaint clearly goes to show that a body of creditors pressurizing the defendants to discharge the loans being in possession of various promissory notes and plaintiff discharged the amount to the creditors and obtained Ex.A.21 agreement of sale. There was an admission of the plaintiff in his evidence in cross examination that the 1 st defendant obtained the signatures of his children on Ex.A.21 agreement of sale. 18. The recitals in Ex.A.21 agreement of sale clearly goes to show that to discharge the loan under Ex.A.16 to Ex.A.18 promissory notes in favour of third parties, plaintiff directly paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the creditors and no consideration is paid under Ex.A.21 agreement of sale by the plaintiff to the defendants. As noticed supra, surprisingly, all the discharged promissory notes are in the custody of the creditors instead of debtors. There is no proper explanation from the plaintiff on that aspect. As stated supra, in the plaint and in Ex.A.21 agreement of sale it was specifically mentioned the possession of the plaint schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff on 07.03.1994 under Ex.A.21 agreement of sale, but the plaintiff categorically admitted in his evidence in cross examination itself that the possession of the plaint schedule property was not delivered to him. 19. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is not entitled the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 07.03.1994. By giving cogent reasons, on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit and the learned First Appellate Judge also re-appreciated the evidence on record and dismissed the appeal by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by both the Courts below. 20. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in the second appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.