M. Jeyapaul, J.— The unsuccessful defendant in a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale having suffered a decree therefor before both the Courts below has preferred the present appeal.

2. Plaintiffs have contended in the plaint that the defendant entered into agreement for sale vide agreement dated 05.04.2004 with the plaintiffs agreeing to sell the suit property at the rate ofRs.4lacs per 4 Bighas 16 Biswas. A sum of Rs.3,00,000 was also paid as an earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement for sale. The sale-deed was to be executed on or before 05.07.2004 after payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.7,41,000 as per terms of the agreement. Contending that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to purchase the suit property for paying the balance consideration but the defendant never visited the Sub Registrar’s office on 5.7.2004 for execution of the sale-deed, the plaintiffs sought for the relief as stated supra.

3. Defendant admitted the execution of the agreement for sale and the time frame fixed for execution of the sale-deed on receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.7,41,000 in the written statement but it was contended that Gurnam Singh, representative of the plaintiffs, came to the shop of the defendant on 3.7.2004 and sought for extension of time for execution of the sale-deed on the pretext that the plaintiffs were not ready with the balance sale consideration. Refusing to accede to such a request, the defendant proceeded to the office of the Sub Registrar, Mohali, on 5.7.2004 for execution of the sale-deed. Plaintiffs came along with Gurnam Singh to the office of Sub Registrar, Mohali, and sought for extension of time for execution of the sale-deed. Defendant refused to grant any extension of time. Contending that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Both the Courts below having relied upon the evidence of PW2 Davinder Singh, Lambardar, in the background of affidavit, Exhibit P2, sworn to by the plaintiffs in the office of the Sub Registrar, Mohali, and rejecting the evidence of DW2 Mansa Singh in the background of the affidavit, Exhibit DW1B, sworn to by the defendant on the very same day before the Sub Registrar, Mohali, held that the plaintiffs were ever ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and consequently, decreed the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant would vehemently submit that the Courts below have recorded a perverse finding without giving due weightage to the evidence ofDW2 Mansa Singh and the affidavit Exhibit DW1B sworn to by the defendant in the office of Sub Registrar. It is his further submission that the fact that no stamp-papers were purchased and the draft sale-deed was not made ready by the plaintiffs, would go to show that the affidavit Exhibit P2 was a concocted document for the purpose of this case.

6. I find that there is no merit in the appeal preferred by the defendant aggrieved by the concurrent verdict of the Courts below. The Courts below have rightly disbelieved the evidence of DW2 Mansa Singh and the affidavit Exhibit DW1B alleged to have been sworn to by the defendant in the office of Sub Registrar, Mohali. Firstly, it is found that Exhibit DW1B was sworn to by the defendant as though the plaintiffs never visited the Sub-Registrar’s office on 5.7.2004 for the purpose of getting the sale-deed executed but quite unfortunately in the written statement the defendant, having completely forgotten the stand he had taken in the alleged affidavit, Exhibit DW1B, has come out with a different version that in fact the plaintiffs were present at the fag-end of the day but he refused to accede to their request for extension of time for execution of the sale-deed. In other words, the defendant has not come out with a consistent version with that of his affidav