JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard Mr. Prashant Pallava, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 15.04.2024 and decree dated 22.04.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.17 of 2022 by learned District Judge-V, Dhanbad whereby he has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2022 and 16.04.2022 passed in Title Suit No.5 of 2011 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2 nd , Dhanbad. 3. The case of the appellants/ respondents is that the defendant is the owner of land measuring 28 decimals in plot no. 353 appertaining to Khata No. 17 of Mouza Rajganj @ Rajabhita, mouza no. 198 by virtue of inheritance and amicable partition amongst three brothers namely Bolai Auddy, Rameshwar @ Ram Auddy and Hublaf @ Habu Auddy all sons of Late Babulal Auddy. The defendant entered into an agreement to sale dated 27th June 2010 with the plaintiff for sale of 8.5 decimals out of 28 decimals of his share of land in plot no.353 appertaining to Khata no. 17 of Mouza Rajganj @ Rajabhita, Thana No. 198, P.S. Katras (Rajganj), Dist Dhanbad. The aforesaid 8.5 decimals of land and measures, 16 feet East-West and 230 feet North-South over which 16’x10’ one shop room thatched with asbestos sheet on southern corner fully mentioned in the schedule of the agreement dt. 27.06.2010 was proposed to be sold by the defendant to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.17.00 Lacs only and out of the total agreed consideration amount the defendant received a sum of Rs. 15 lacs only were agreed to be paid by the plaintiff on the date of execution of registered sale deed within the stipulated period of 9 months from the date of the agreement. The plaintiff was put in possession of the shop room having asbestos roof thereon as a tenant for 09 (nine) months on rent of Rs. 1000/- per months and during that period the registered sale deed was agreed to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on receiving the balance of consideration money of Rs. 15 lacs. The plaintiff was and is always ready and willing to purchase the aforesaid property fully described in schedule by bearing the registration cost of the sale deed besides paying balance consideration of the contract amount. 15 lacs. The plaintiff was and is always ready and willing to purchase the aforesaid property fully described in schedule by bearing the registration cost of the sale deed besides paying balance consideration of the contract amount. That the plaintiff started requesting the defendant to execute registered sale deed and receive balance of consideration money since July, 2010 but in spite of repeated requests of the plaintiff, the defendant always deferred the matter on some pretext or the other. The period of completion of the deal as stipulated in the contract dated 27.06.2010 was on any day within 09 months from the date of contract and as such the plaintiff insisted the defendant to execute the required registered Sale deed after receiving the balance consideration money from the month of July 2010 onwards but the defendant although assured but always deferred the matter. Seeing such attitude of the defendants, the plaintiff got an advocate’s notice dated 19.11.2010 served. upon the defendants. The said notice was duly received by the defendant and the defendants got the said advocate’s notice replied vide reply dt. 29.10.2010 refusing to execute registered Sale deed, falsely denying receipt of advance of consideration amount. The cause of action for the present suit has arisen on 27.06.2010 (when the defendant agreed to sale the suit property and received part consideration money) and on 29.11.2010 (when the defendant has refused to execute regd. Sale deed) and subsequently thereafter. 4. The case of the defendants is that by filling the written statement defendants have pleaded that the suit is, not maintainable having no cause of action for filing the present suit, issue and also barred under the principles of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel and under the provisions of Specific Relief Act . CPC, Indian Contract Act and Jharkhand Building (LR & E) Act 2000. It is further averred that the defendant has filed a suit earlier to the present suit, being Title suit no. 294 of 2010 against the plaintiff, which is pending, in which the defendant has prayed for declaration that the agreement dt. 27.06.2010 is null and void and in-operative. CPC, Indian Contract Act and Jharkhand Building (LR & E) Act 2000. It is further averred that the defendant has filed a suit earlier to the present suit, being Title suit no. 294 of 2010 against the plaintiff, which is pending, in which the defendant has prayed for declaration that the agreement dt. 27.06.2010 is null and void and in-operative. He has further arrived that in the light of the said agreement this agreement cannot be enforced under the provision of law and therefore during the pendency of the previous suit in Title Suit No. 294 of 2010 the present suit is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed. It is further averred that the defendant, entered in to an agreement for sale on 27.06.2010, but in, entering into this agreement, the plaintiff committed fraud upon the present defendant and therefore, the present defendant, has filed a suit against the present plaintiff for termination of the agreement dt. 27.06.2010, as no advance money was paid to the answering defendant. The plaintiff was put in possession over the said shop room measuring 16x10 feet on monthly rent as the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month. But it was never paid, any rent for the tenanted premises. It is further stated that the plaintiff was never been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He has not paid the advance sum of Rs.2 lacs to the defendant and therefore, there is no question of paying the balance amount as falsely alleged. The plaintiff has violated the terms of agreement dt. 27.06.2010 and therefore this agreement is null and void and cannot be enforced under the provision of law, the plaintiff could not perform his part of the contract, therefore, there is no question of validity of the said agreement for nine months from the date of its execution. All other allegations are not correct and hence denied by the defendant. He further admitted to give reply of the notice dt. 19.11.2010 sent on behalf of the plaintiff. It is further stated that plaintiff has not stated anything about the previous Title suit, being Title suit no. 294 of 2010 filed by the answering defendant against the present Plaintiff, in which the present plaintiff has appeared and filed his written statement. He further admitted to give reply of the notice dt. 19.11.2010 sent on behalf of the plaintiff. It is further stated that plaintiff has not stated anything about the previous Title suit, being Title suit no. 294 of 2010 filed by the answering defendant against the present Plaintiff, in which the present plaintiff has appeared and filed his written statement. Issues was settled and suit was fixed for evidence and even then, the present plaintiff has not whispered any word about the previous Title suit. The defendant to file a petition before the ld. D.J., Dhanbad of staying the present suit as he has earlier filed a suit against the present plaintiff. He ultimately prayed that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and prayed to dismiss the suit with cost. 5. The appellants-respondents, in the aforesaid background, has instituted Title Suit No.5 of 2011 for decree, directing the defendants to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property described in the schedule on receiving balance of consideration amount in terms of contract to sale dated 27.06.2010. The prayer is also made that the defendants be directed to execute the registered sale deed in a time specified by the court failing which the said deed be registered according to the provisions of Order XXI Rule 34(5) of the CPC and the cost has also been prayed. 6. The learned trial court has decreed the suit by the judgment dated 05.04.2022 in favour of the plaintiff and aggrieved with that, the appellant herein have preferred Civil Appeal No.17 of 2022 which was dismissed by the judgment dated 15.4.2024. 7. Mr. Prashant Pallav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the sale agreement was already cancelled by the appellants/defendants and there was no prayer in the suit of declaring the termination of the agreement as unlawful and in spite of that the learned courts have decreed the suit which is against the mandate of law. He submits that this can be a proper question of law to admit this second appeal and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of I.S. Sikandar (Dead) By LRS v. K.Subramani and Others, reported in (2013) 15 SCC 27 and Mohinder Kaur v. Sant Paul Singh reported in (2019) 9 SCC 358 . He submits that this can be a proper question of law to admit this second appeal and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of I.S. Sikandar (Dead) By LRS v. K.Subramani and Others, reported in (2013) 15 SCC 27 and Mohinder Kaur v. Sant Paul Singh reported in (2019) 9 SCC 358 . On this ground, he submits that this second appeal may kindly be admitted. 8. The Court has gone through the judgments of the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court. The learned trial court has framed ten issues to decide the suit. The learned court has appreciated the evidence and the documents and has found that the Exhibit-1 is an agreement dated 27.6.2010 whereby the plaintiff and the defendants have entered into an agreement for purchase of the suit land and Rs.2 lacs was paid as advance by the plaintiff to the original defendants and that has been proved by the PW-1 and PW-2 by way of oral evidence and the same has also been proved by endorsement of the original defendants at the back of first page of the agreement regarding receiving of the amount of Rs.2 lacs. Exhibit-X is dated 19.11.2010 whereby the plaintiff sent the legal notice to the defendants to execute the sale deed after receiving of the remaining amount and reply to that effect was issued by the defendants in form of Exhibit-3 which is dated 29.11.2010 saying that the plaintiff has not paid rent of the shop and in view of that violated the terms of the agreement and therefore that agreement was terminated. The Exhibit-4 and Exhibit-4/1 was the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.294 of 2010 which was instituted by the defendants that the agreement was null and void which was dismissed by the learned court by judgment dated 13.01.2017. Considering all these judgments, the learned court has found that the same plea has been taken by the appellants/defendants in the suit for not executing the sale deed and considering the dismissal of the suit on the agreement in question. The learned court has come to the conclusion that it is valid agreement and advance was paid and in view of that, the learned trial court has decreed the suit. 9. The learned court has come to the conclusion that it is valid agreement and advance was paid and in view of that, the learned trial court has decreed the suit. 9. In view of that the appellants/defendants has moved before the first appellate court in Civil Appeal No.17 of 2022 and the learned first appellate court has also been pleased to dismiss the appeal. In view of the controversy, the learned first appellate court has framed two points to decide the said appeal and the learned first appellate court has further considered the evidence of the PW-1-Mukesh Agrawal who has depicted the same thing which has been found by the learned trial court which is noted in this judgement above. PW-2 Md. Jhangir has also supported that Rs.2 lac advance was paid to the appellants/defendants and the defendants on one or other pretext extended the period of execution of sale deed and ultimately refused to execute the sale deed. The learned appellate court has further appreciated the exhibits and has come to the conclusion that there is an agreement and there is no error in the judgment of the learned trial court. This Court finds that on the facts, both the learned courts are firm. 10. So far the law point in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, that is misplaced in view of the fact that in the case in hand, the termination agreement itself was under question as not valid by the defendants in Title Suit No.294 of 2010 which has been dismissed and in view of that, the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of I.S. Sikandar (Dead) By LRS v. K.Subramani and Others , reported in (2013) 15 SCC 27 and Mohinder Kaur v. Sant Paul Singh reported in (2019) 9 SCC 358 (supra) in those cases the issue was opened with regard to termination of the agreement. However, in the case in hand the issue has already been answered on a suit instituted by the appellants. As such those judgments are not helping the appellants. The Court finds that there is concurrent finding of two learned courts and both the learned courts are firm on the facts and there is no perversity in the judgment of either of the learned courts. As such those judgments are not helping the appellants. The Court finds that there is concurrent finding of two learned courts and both the learned courts are firm on the facts and there is no perversity in the judgment of either of the learned courts. No law points have been made out to admit the present Second Appeal. As such, S.A. No.97 of 2024 is dismissed. 11. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.