The grant of decree for specific performance is discretionary and equitable in nature, and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. The delay of 30 years in filing the suit can lead to the dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellant-plaintiff has filed this second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2019 passed in civil first appeal No.02/2016 by the Court of Additional District Judge, Bansur, District Alwar affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.05.2016 passed in civil suit No.35/2012 by the Court of Civil Judge, Bansur District Alwar whereby and whereunder the civil suit for specific performance and permanent injunction filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed.

2. Having heard learned counsel for appellant and on perusal of impugned judgments and record.

3. The relevant facts may be recapitulated as under:-

'3.1 Appellant-plaintiff instituted a civil suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction on 10.10.2012, on the basis of an agreement to sale dated 02.04.1982. It means the suit has been filed after expiry of near-about 30 years.

3.2 Plaintiff averred that he was in possession of lands in question from 1968 much prior to agreement to sale dated 02.04.1982.

3.3 Plaintiff averred that he issued a legal notice dated 13.09.2012 for getting the sale deed registered in compliance of agreement dated 02.04.1982.'

4. Respondents-defendants submitted written statement and denied the agreement dated 02.04.1982 as also the possession of plaintiff over the lands in question.

5. The trial court after framing issues and recording evidence of both parties have concluded that plaintiff has measurably failed to prove the execution of agreement.

6. None of the witnesses of agreement namely Gomaram and Ram Avatar have been produced nor the stamp vendor from whom the agreement of stamp was purchased, had been produced.

The trial court observed that though plaintiff stated that all three witnesses have passed away however, their death certificates have not been produced on record. The other witnesses of plaintiff could not prove the execution of agreement as their presence at the time of agreement is doubtful. Some intercolation in the agreement was also noticed.

7. On overall appreciation of evidence on record, the trial court concluded that the agreement is suspicious and further its execution is also not proved.

8. In relation to the issue of possession, the trial court has discussed the evidence while deciding the issue No.2 and has observed that plaintiff could not prove his actual and physical possession over the lands in question prior to agreement to sale.

9. The trial court also observed that plaintiff has instituted the suit after expiry of 30 years, prima facie it appears to be barred by limitation as much as the plaintiff is not entitled for the decree of specific performance of agreement after 30 years. Finally, the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.05.2016.

10. Appellant-plaintiff preferred first appeal.

11. In the first appeal, the appellate court, having considered the findings passed by trial court, discussed the pleadings and evidence of both parties and on re-appreciation of entire evidence, decided each issue independently and separately. The first appellate court, has given re-hearing to the matter as a whole. The first appellate court, on re-appreciation has concurred with the findings of the trial court. Argument raised by plaintiff that the agreement in question is about 30 years old, therefore, its execution be treated as genuine, was turned down in the circumstances that the agreement itself was noticed to be suspicious being interpolated. The first appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 01.06.2019 affirming the fact finding and the judgment of the trial court.

12. Against the concurrent findings of fact, the appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

13. Learned counsel for appellant made a persuasive attempt to submit that the fact findings in relation to the execution of agreement in question as well as in relation to the possession are perverse as the evidence of plaintiff's witnesses have not been considered and has