Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. This is defendants regular second appeal against the decree of specific performance passed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance for enforcement of agreement dated 12.8.1997, vide which Sh. Kishori Lal (now deceased) predecessor-in-interest of the appellant had agreed to sell one house bearing municipal No. 1-7363 situated at Vaidan Street, near Halu Bazar and Old Anaj Mandi, Bhiwani. Out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 60,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- was paid as earnest money by way of cheque and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of conveyance deed. The date fixed for execution was 11.2.1998. The plaintiff claimed that he was always and still willing to perform his part of contract, whereas defendant continued delaying the matter, and thereafter refused to execute the sale deed.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant/appellant as LR of Sh. Kishori Lal, wherein it was claimed that the plaintiff/respondent had not come to the Court with clean hands, as he suppressed the true and material facts and, therefore, was not entitled to relief of specific performance. It was claimed that on the pretext of acknowledgement of debt of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees fourty thousand only), the plaintiff/respondent got signatures of defendant on blank papers and thereafter fraudulently forged the agreement of sale. It was claimed that the property in dispute was ancestral property, in which the appellant/defendant had interest by birth. It was claimed that there was no legal necessity for sale of the house. It was also claimed that the market value of the property was Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lac only) at the time of agreement to sell and, there fore, the price fixed was inadequate. Plea of fraud was also raised.

4. After filing of the replication, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :-

"1. Whether Kishori Lal (deceased defendant) predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, entered into an agreement to sell the disputed house on 12.8.1997 for a sale consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and received Rs. 40,000/- as earnest money ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff was and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract ? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form and the same is barred by provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Specific Relief Act ? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi as well as cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.

5. Relief."

5. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court has recorded a concurrent finding of fact that deceased Kishori Lal predecessor-in-interest of the appellant had executed an agreementto sell for sale consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and he received Rs. 40,000/- as earnest money. A concurrent finding has also been recorded that the plaintiff/respondent was and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

6. In view of findings recorded on issues No. 1 and 2, issues No. 3 and 4 were decided against the defendant/appellant and in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.

7. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court has been affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court.

8. It may also be noticed here that defendant/appellant did not affix the Court fee, in spite of opportunity having been given. The learned lower appellate Court, thus, held that the appeal was not maintainable for not affixing the Court fee. The learned lower appellate Court also held that the plea of the defendant/appellant that the property was ancestral, also could not be accepted, as the defendant/appellant failed to prove the ancestral nature of the property.

9. Mr. Mani Ram Verma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law :-

"1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is outcome of misreading of documentary and oral evidence, i