JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.8.1992 passed by 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby he has dismissed title appeal No. 68/90 and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by Sub-Judge V, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 37/86.
2. The plaintiff appellant filed the aforementioned suit for a decree for specific performance of contract. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he entered into an agreement that defendant No. 1 on 14.2.1980 for sale of the suit land and in pursuance of that agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 6,000/- to defendant No. 1. As per the terms of agreement the defendant was required to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after obtaining permission under Section 46 of the Chotanagpur
Tenancy Act. It is alleged that when the defendant No. 1 had not shown her readiness to execute the sale deed the lawyer’s notice was given in 1986 and thereafter suit was filed.
3. The defendant No. 1 who was illiterate tribal lady denied the execution of agreement and stated that she never put her LTI in the agreement.
4. The Trial Court after considering the evidence both oral and documentary decided all the issues against the plaintiff and held that the alleged agreement is a fabricated document. The plaintiff then preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court also after re-appreciation of the entire evidence affirmed the finding of the Trial Court and held that the genuineness of the agreement has not been proved by the plaintiff in as much as even the LTI appearing in the agreement was not identified by any person and the plaintiff did not take any step for examination of the LTI by expert.
5. This appeal was admitted on 25.11.1994 on the following specific questions of law.
(1) Whether the findings of the learned Court of appeal below with regard genuineness of the agreement (Exhibit 7) are against the material on record.
(ii) Whether in a case where admission LTI of a person appearing on a document is admitted by him/her, the onus lies upon the person whose signa-ture/LTI appears on the document to prove under what circumstance, the document has been manufactured and whether the defendants/respondents miserably failed to discharge the onus cast upon them?
(iii) Whether in a case where signature LTI on a particular document is admitted by a person, presumption would be that such person knows the contents of the document.
6. Mr. Debi Prasad learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant as-
sailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the same is perverse in law. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is not necessary to examine expert in all cases. When the defendant admitted that her LTI was obtained in a blank sheet of paper then the Court ought to have presumed the execution of the agreement. Learned counsel drew my attention to the evidence of the witnesses.
7. It is interesting to refer the plaint of Title Suit No. 36/86. The plaintiff’s case as per the plaint is that on 14th February, 1980, the defendant executed the deed of agreement and received Rs. 6,000/-. In para 5 of the plaint it is stated that in terms of the agreement the defendant was to apply for permission for sale of the land. In para 6 it is alleged that defendants several times came to the residence of the plaintiff and assured that they have applied for mutation in Circle Office and also applied for permission under Section 46, CNT Act. In para 8 of the plaint it is alleged that plaintiff several times requested the defendants to execute the sale deed without disclosing the dates, in para 9 of the plaint it is alleged that a registered notice was sent to the defendant on 18.12.1985.
8. Curiously enough the agreement alleged to have been executed in 1980 and for the first time notice was given in 1985 and the suit was filed in 1986, In the plaint there is no explanation regarding filing of suit after six years nor there is specific pleading regarding readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract.
9. Be that as it may, when the lower appellate Court after re- appreciation of the entire evidence, has come to a concurrent finding of fact that the alleged agreement was never executed by the defendant No. 1, this court, in second appeal, cannot come to a different finding after reappreciation of evidence. It is well settled that where finding of fact of lower appellate Court is based on evidence, High Court in second appeal cannot substitute its own finding on re-appreciation of evidence merely on the ground that another view Is possible.
10. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the finding recorded by the appellate Court the questions of law formulated at the time of admission of this appeal does not arise. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.