JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The plaintiff has filed this regular second appeal assailing the correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below.

The plaintiff-Hardev Singh filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the contract with a consequential relief of permanent injunction. He claims that defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell on 03.11.2009 with respect to a land measuring 5 marlas on receipt of earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/- out of a total sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. He claims that defendant No.1 was owner of land measuring 20 marlas in khewat No.179//160, khatauni No.218-19, khasra No.74 situated in village Khangesra, Tehsil and District Panchkula. He claims that defendant No.1 previously sold land measuring 10 marlas to defendant No.2 vide a registered sale deed dated 16.11.2007. Defendant No.2 in turn sold the aforesaid land measuring 10 marlas to the plaintiff's mother (Smt. Jaspal Kaur) vide a registered sale deed dated 17.09.2008. Thereafter, defendant No.1 agreed to sell a plot of land measuring 2 marlas in favour of Jaspal Kaur vide an agreement to sell dated 12.10.2008 on receipt of the entire sale consideration.

Thus, the plaintiff claims that her mother has constructed a house on 12 marlas of land. Thereafter, the agreement in question was entered into with respect to land measuring 5 marlas on 03.12.2009. He claims that on the target date for execution and registration of the sale deed, he visited the office of Sub Registrar on 03.03.2010 along with the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, however, defendant No.1 did not come forward. Thus, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

Defendant No.1 contested the suit by taking a stand that no agreement to sell with regard to 5 marlas of land as alleged by the plaintiff was entered into as he had already sold the entire land in favour of defendant No.2. The defendant took a stand that he had taken a loan of Rs.60,000/- with an agreement to pay back the same with interest and the plaintiff had taken his thumb impression on plain papers. The signatures of Kulwinder Singh and Hardeep Singh were taken as guarantors on the aforesaid papers.

Defendant No.2 filed the written statement claiming that she is purchaser of entire 20 marlas of land from defendant No.1. She further claims that in fact suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant No.1. She further claims that she is a bona fide purchaser for consideration.

She further claims that defendant No.1 sold 10 marlas land vide a sale deed dated 16.11.2007. Thereafter, defendant No.1 sold land measuring 4 marlas vide another sale deed dated 23.06.2008 which was registered on 26.06.2008.

She further claims that defendant No.1 agreed to sell the remaining plot measuring 6 marlas in her favour vide an agreement to sell dated 22.12.2008 for a total agreed sale consideration of Rs.4,65,000/- on receipt of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter, a sale deed of 6 marlas was executed and registered by defendant No.1 in her favour on the collector rate on 22.02.2010.

In order to properly understand the various transactions between the parties, learned First Appellate Court has complied the information in a table, which is extracted as under:-

Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence have found that although the plaintiff has successfully proved t