1. This Second Appeal under section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 6.1.2014 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of Additional District Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in Civil Appeal No. 32-A/2013, thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.1.2013 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Sironj, District Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 27-A/2012, by which the suit filed by the respondent No. 2 for specific performance of contract was decreed.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that the respondent No. 2 filed a suit against the appellant on the pleadings that on 2.6.2010, the appellant had entered into an agreement to sell the disputed land, bearing survey No. 215/1, area 0.759 hectare for a consideration of Rs. 3 lac and out of which, an amount of Rs. 2 lacs was paid on the date of execution of agreement to sell and it was agreed that the sale deed shall be executed by 30th April, 2011. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 made verbal request to the appellant to execute the sale deed on various occasions prior to 30th April, 2011 but the appellant did not execute the sale deed and accordingly, the respondent No. 2 issued a written notice to the appellant on 11.5.2011 to execute the sale deed after receiving the remaining amount of Rs.1 lac. The notice was sent by registered post, however, the appellant refused to accept the same. Accordingly, the suit was filed for specific performance of contract as well as for possession.

3. The appellant filed his written statement and submitted that he had never executed an agreement of sale in favour of the respondent No. 2. The boundaries mentioned in the agreement are also incorrect. In additional pleadings, it was stated by the appellant that one Raghunath Singh, whose mother was the President of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, had approached the father of the appellant and persuaded him that as the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is likely to be shifted to Siroj-Lateri Road, resulting in escalation in price of lands, therefore, the father of the appellant may sell 3 bighas of land. Relying on the persuasion made by Raghunath Singh, the appellant had executed the document at the instance of his father in favour of respondent No. 2, however, he was not informed that in whose favour the said document is being executed and even not a single paisa was paid to him. Later on, even the Mandi did not shift as per the promise made by Raghunath Singh. When the appellant demanded his document back, then the respondent No. 2 demanded an amount of Rs. 2 lac and as the appellant had refused to pay the said amount, therefore, the suit has been filed.

4. The trial Court after framing the issues, recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit and came to a conclusion that an agreement to sell was executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent No. 2 after receiving an amount of Rs. 2 lac by way of advance. It was also held that the appellant has failed to prove that the agreement to sell was executed by keeping him in dark and playing fraud on him. The readiness and willingness of the respondent No. 2 was also answered in affirmative.

5. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.1.2013 passed by the Trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal, which too has suffered dismissal by the judgment and decree dated 6.1.2014 passed by the Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 32-A/2013.

6. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the respondent No. 2 is, admittedly, an advocate and is also in the business of Real Estate and he has admitted in para 23 of his cross-examination that he is the Director of Real Estate Company. The respondent No. 2 had a close friendship with Raghunath Singh, whose mother was the President of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and Raghunath Singh by misrepresenting the father of the appellant, had persuaded the father of the appellant as