1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant - appellant Sardarmal S/O Sh. Paras Ram being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court dated 10.11.2006 reversing the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs - respondents by judgment and decree 29.11.2006 and allowing the appeal of the plaintiff Om Prakash Purohit & Ors.

3. The plaintiffs - respondents Om Prakash and ors. had approached the learned trial Court by Civil Suit No.420/1995 seeking relief of declaring the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants dated 5.8.1985 as void and nonest and also seeking possession of the suit property marked as "A, B, C, D and C, D, E in red ink in the map filed along with the suit and also mesne profits.

4. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs had neither produced any patta showing his ownership right over the suit property nor they could establish that there was any misrepresentation on the part of the defendants who entered into agreement with the plaintiffs on 5.8.1985 on the basis of Ex.A/5, a patta setting map and under the said agreement the plaintiffs agreed to exchange his land if the defendants give up their right over the land shown in the map Ex.A/5 in favour of the plaintiff.

5. The learned First Appellate Court however allowed the appeal of the plaintiff by the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2006 and held that there was nothing in Ex.A/5 patta setting map which could establish any semblance of right over the said property in favour of the defendants Sardar Mal or his father Paras Ram and therefore the said defendant had misrepresented to the plaintiff and under the threat of legal action against the plaintiff for removal of his possession over the Municipal land and over the land which the defendant claimed to be his, the plaintiff was misled to enter into agreement dated 5.8.1985 Ex.A-1 and it is only when subsequently in the year 1987 when during the enquiry made from the Municipal authorities, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had no such right over the land in question situated on the north side of plaintiff's house, and therefore, the agreement dated 5.8.1985 was entered into by the plaintiff upon misrepresentation of the defendant and therefore, the said agreement deserves to be declared to be void and unenforceable.

6. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant - appellant Sardar Mal and Smt. Kisan Kaur vehemently submitted that the plaintiff entered into agreement dated 5.8.1985 with the open eyes and there was no misrepresentation on the part of the defendants on the basis of Ex.A/5 patta setting map. The said agreement Ex. A-1 dated 5.8.1985 being reduced to writing and duly signed by both the parties, the plaintiffs could not turn back and say that the said agreement was void and the learned trial Court had rightly found that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the defendants, whereas the learned first appellate Court has erred in holding that the said agreement was void on account of misrepresentation of the defendants.

7. On the side opposite, Mr. Manoj Bhandari strongly opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that as a matter of fact, no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal as it is finding of fact of the first appellate Court based on cogent material and evidence of misrepresentation by the defendants and the same cannot be interfered with in the present second appeal. Mr. Bhandari taking this Court through original record including Ex.A/5, so called patta setting map, submitted that the said map nowhere establishes any right in favour of the defendants over the suit property situated on the north side of the plaintiffs' house and admittedly showing this document and claiming the said north portion to be belonging to him, the defendant misled the plainti