Hon’ble Harsh Kumar, J.—This second appeal has been filed by plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Kannauj in Civil appeal No. 03 of 2002, Madhu Sudan v. Harish Swarrop, arising out of judgment and decree dated 13.8.2002 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Kannauj in civil suit No. 174 of 1983, Harish Swarrop v. Madhu Sudan Lal Bajpaee.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 174 of 1983 for specific performance of contract on the basis of an unregistered agreement for sale dated 13.3.1974, in which the property in suit, the two shops were allegedly agreed to be sold by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- only, an agreement was executed on payment of Rs. 25,000/- as advance sale consideration, and sale-deed was agreed to be executed in ten years on payment of Rs. 5000/-, the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff allegedly sent notice to defendant, to which no heed was paid by the defendant and so Civil Suit No. 174 of 1983 was filed for specific performance of contract. vide judgment and decree dated 13.8.2002 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Kannauj, the suit of plaintiff-appellants was decreed with costs, for specific performance of contract. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred Civil appeal No. 03 of 2002 under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure before District Judge, Kannauj which was transfered for disposal to the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 3 Kannauj and was allowed with costs vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31.5.2014 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13.8.2002 passed by the trial Court and holding the agreement to be a forged document. Feeling aggrieved, now the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

3. Heard Sri Nalin Kumar Sharma, Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akhilesh Chand Shukla, learned advocate holding brief of Sri Rajeev Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned judgment and decree passed by lower appellate Court is wrong on facts and law; that the findings of trial Court regarding execution of agreement and payment of advance sale consideration were correct; that since the agreement for sale relates to the year 1974, it does not require registration and it is wrong to say that the agreement is forged one; that the first appellate Court acted wrongly in discarding the truthful evidence produced by and on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant and in relying on the untruthful and untrustworthy evidence produced by and on behalf of defendant-respondent; that the first appellate Court failed to rely the expert report produced by the plaintiff regarding signatures of defendant over the agreement; that it acted wrongly in holding the agreement in question, since does not bear signatures of the plaintiff/proposed vendee, it cannot be considered to be an agreement for sale; that the first appellate Court acted wrongly in disbelieving the agreement as one of its marginal witness was alleged to be minor at the time of execution of agreement and for non-production of the marginal witnesses without considering that both of the marginal witnesses had died; that the first appellate Court acted wrongly in discarding the agreement and disbelieving the contract, as scribe of agreement turned hostile and did not support the plaintiff; that the lower appellate Court erred under law by not following the mandatory provision of Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C.; that the judgment and decree passed by lower appellate Court are illegal, erroneous and perverse; that following substantial questions of law are involved in the present second appeal :

“(i) Whether, the judgment of reversal must be in strict compliance of Order 41, Rule 31 of C.P.C.?

(ii) Whether, the judgment based upon incorrect and inapplicable law can be said a judgment in the eye of l