IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH R.F.A.No.1861/2013 (SP) BETWEEN:
G.K. MALLAIAH S/O. KADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS PRESIDENT: K.G.M. EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, NEW COMPLEX G.K.M. EXTENSION KANAKAPURA ROAD JARAGANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 078. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. Y.R. SADASHIVA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. DEEPAK AND SRI. RAHUL P., ADVOCATES) AND:
1. SMT. PALAMMA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS W/O. LATE ANNAYYAPPA 2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA 3. UPENDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA 4. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA 5. VINOD KUMAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI-560 078 BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
6. SOMASHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O. GOVINDAPPA RESIDENT OF G.K.M. COLLEGE ROAD G.K.M. EXTENSION, JARAGANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 078. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIGNESHWARA U, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2013 PASSED IN O.S.4659/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-4, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit passed in O.S.No.4659/2006 dated 29.10.2013 on the file of XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.44).
2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Court below to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.
3. Brief facts of the case:
It is the case of the plaintiff that since the defendant Nos.1 to 5 and Annayappa have executed the sale agreement dated 02.02.1984 in respect of the plaint schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff sought the relief of grant of specific performance and mandatory injunction directing the defendants to execute the sale deed failing which the Court to execute the sale deed in terms of contract of sale and grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
4. The first defendant is the wife of Annayappa who died in the year 1994. The second defendant is the wife of Krishnappa who is son of 1st defendant and Annayappa. He died in the year 1992. Defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 are the children of Krishnappa and 2nd defendant. The sixth defendant is the resident of same area and he is supporting the defendant Nos.1 to 5 in their illegal acts. Annayappa was the owner of the suit schedule property measuring 2 acres 11 guntas of land situated at Jaraganahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, having purchased the same from one K.Chikka Puttappa, S/o. Konappa under the registered sale deed dated 07.11.1960 and same is the self acquired property of Annayappa.
5. The plaintiff is the resident of Bengaluru and he established number of institutions for imparting education and for establishing his own buildings and constructions. Plaintiff was searching for land in and around Bengaluru South Taluk, deceased Annayappa had offered to sell the same to the plaintiff in the year 1984. Plaintiff has been running the institutions right from the year 1983-84 and has more than 2000 students in its various institutions. For the said purpose, plaintiff negotiated with late Annayappa and there was an agreement and understanding between plaintiff and said Annayappa, 1st defendant and his son Krishnappa. In pursuance of the said understanding, plaintiff had agreed to purchase 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.24/3 i.e., suit schedule property under an agreement dated 2.2.1984 for valuable consideration of Rs.2,27,500/-. For the said agreement 1st defendant and 2nd defendant and Annayappa and his son Krishnappa are all signatories and have executed the agreement. On the date of agreement, plaintiff had advanced a sum of Rs.50,000/- by cash, which has been acknowledged by the executors of the agreement. On the same day plaintiff was put in possession of the property and that the sellers agreed to execute registered sale deed later after taking balance sale consideration, as there was prohibition for registration by the Government and the total extent of the land was 28 guntas. After the agreement the sellers have received further payments through cheques, for which written endorsements have been entered in the agreement itself. As there was total ban on the registration of these lands, the sellers had agreed to execute sale deed whenever they were called upon to do so by the plaintiff and when the registration is open and no time limit was fixed. In pursuance of the said agreement, plaintiff is in possession of the lands in question till today. However, during the course of time the sellers had further executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of suit property dated 17.04.1989 and the same was identified by an Advocate. Thereafter, sellers were receiving further advances by cheques, in all they received Rs.6,90,000/-.
6. Since the land was not being registered, plaintiff was hoping that the sellers would not do any act of further selling the land in question. In pursuance of the said agreement, survey was done and sketch had been prepared for 28 guntas, showing the location of the land. Even prior to that, plaintiff had been advancing moneys to construct the college buildings to the said Annayappa. When the matter stood like this, the deceased Annayappa’s son Krishnappa developed serious illness and that was also one of the reasons for selling the land and he died on account of illness in the year 1992, thereafter the said Annayappa also died. After the death of Annayappa, the khatha of the property had been made over in the name of Lakshmamma-2nd defendant and wife of deceased Krishnappa. She is also one of the executors of the agreement and power of attorney.
7. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he has been ready and willing to have sale deed as he has paid all the moneys towards the sale consideration during the lifetime of Annayappa. Except registration, all other work has been done on the part of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the balance amount. Plaintiff has been in possession of the schedule property. Hence, he is entitled for the relief as sought in the plaint. It is contended that time is not the essence of the contract.
8. Defendants in pursuance of the suit summons appeared through their counsel and defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed their written statement and other defendant Nos.3 to 6 have adopted the written statement. It is contended in the written statement that suit itself is not maintainable and at no point of time, the plaintiff approached the defendants and the very approach made by the plaintiff before the Court is by making false claim and no such sale agreement was executed and defendant Nos.1 to 5 are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.24/3 measuring an extent of 2 acres 11 guntas. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the said property. The revenue records pertaining to the said property was standing in the name of Annayappa in the records maintained by the revenue department and after his death, the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 is entered in column No.9 and column No.12/2 of the RTC in respect of the said property. It clearly discloses that the defendants are in possession of the property. The defendants have denied the claim of the plaintiff that he has been in possession.
9. It is further contended that the plaintiff has created, concocted and fabricated the documents and filed false suit against the defendants. It is further contended that one Smt.Shanthamma and one Shivalinga Nayak who have no manner of right, title, interest and possession in respect of suit schedule property attempted to trespass over the suit schedule property belonging to these defendants and hence, they filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the said Shanthamma and Shivalinga Nayak in O.S.No.7601/2005 and obtained the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2006. It is also contended that there is no cause of action to file the suit. Based on the pleadings of the plaintiff and defendants, the Court below has framed the following issues and additional issues:-
ISSUES 1. Does the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?
2. Does the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by defendants over the suit schedule property?
3. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants 1, 2 and Annayappa, his son Krishnappa have entered into an agreement of sale of suit property in favour of plaintiff for total consideration of Rs.2,27,500/- and executed an agreement of sale on 2.2.1984 by receiving Rs.50,000/- as an advance amount?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that he was/is ready and willing to perform his part of contract?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendants have put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property and received the entire sale consideration?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract as prayed for?
5. Whether the defendants prove that the Court Fee paid is not proper?
6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
10. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim examined one witness as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2 and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P11 and. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.2 examined herself as DW.1 and got marked document Exs.D1 to D29.
11. The Court below, after recording the evidence, heard the respective counsel and answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and so also the additional issue Nos.1, 3 to 5 in the negative and additional issue No.6 in the affirmative and dismissed the suit. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.
12. In the appeal, it is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the Court below has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved the very execution of the sale agreement. The respondents have not taken any steps to disprove the said execution of the agreement. Plaintiff also examined PW.2 to prove the very execution of the sale agreement. It is also further contended that the Court below did not consider Exs.P4 to P6 which are photographs to show that he has constructed a big building thereon and established a College thereon and he has been imparting education to 600 students. The respondents did not deny the signatures available on Exs.P.2(a) and P2(b). Hence, the Trial Judge ought to have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the very execution of the sale agreement and so also the power of attorney. The Court below ought not to have come to the conclusion that the suit is barred by law of limitation since the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.2,27,500/- and apart from that he has paid an extra amount more than Rs.4,00,000/- in all to the tune of Rs.6,90,000/-. Hence, the very judgment of the Trial Court is erroneous and it requires interference of this Court.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in his arguments vehemently contended that the sale agreement was executed to an extent of 28 guntas out of 2 acres 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.24/3 on 02.02.1984 for the sale consideration of Rs.2,27,500/-. On the very same day, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid as advance. Since there was a prohibition of registration of revenue documents, the defendants demanded more money. He paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 13.8.1988, Rs.25,000/- on 02.03.1989, Rs.25,000/- on 24.05.1989, Rs.1,20,000/- on 21.08.1989, Rs.2,27,500/- on 21.08.1989 and Rs.2,20,000/- on 02.09.1989 and on 17.09.1989, he also executed the power of attorney and possession was delivered and the time was not the essence of the contract.
14. The plaintiff at the first instance filed the suit for permanent injunction and later on prayed for the relief of specific performance. The Court below has committed an error in not appreciating the documents which are produced before the Court and committed an error in holding that the plaintiff has not proved the very execution of the sale agreement and General Power of Attorney and also not proved the payment as contended. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents in his arguments vehemently contended that the alleged sale agreement is dated 2.2.1984 and the suit is filed almost after lapse of 22 years. It is his contention that there was a prohibition of registration of revenue documents at the time of execution of the agreement and the plaintiff has not explained as to why he kept quiet for a period of 22 years. The plaintiff contended that he has paid an amount of Rs.6,90,000/- in all on different dates through cheques and for having paid the said amount, he has not produced any document before the Court. The very sale agreement is concocted, created and fabricated and also the other endorsements made in the sale agreement is also concocted. These defendants have not signed any such sale agreement and also at no point of time, agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the case has been registered against the plaintiff for the offence of forgery. The Court below observing that when the plaintiff was not able to prove the very execution of the sale agreement so also for having paid the sale consideration to the defendants and the specific stand being taken by the defendants that no such agreement was executed by them and also no payment was received, has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence while considering the suit for granting the relief of specific performance. Hence, there are no grounds to reverse the findings of the Trial Court and prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal.
16. Having heard the arguments of the appellant's counsel as well as the respondents' counsel and also keeping in view of the contentions urged by the respective parties before this Court, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are:-
1. Whether the Court below has committed an error in answering additional issue Nos.1, 3 to 5 in the negative in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff was not able to prove the very execution of sale agreement dated 2.2.1984 and he was put in possession in respect of the suit schedule property and it requires interference of this Court ?
2. Whether the Court below has committed an error in answering issue Nos.1 and 2 in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff has not been in lawful possession over the suit schedule property and no such alleged interference by the defendants in respect of suit schedule property?
3. Whether the Court below has committed an error in answering issue No.6 in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the suit is barred by law of limitation and it requires interference of this Court?
4. What Order?
17. Points No.1 to 4:- The case of the plaintiff before the Court is that the defendants have executed the sale agreement on 2.2.1984 and sale consideration is fixed for Rs.2,27,500/- and out of the sale consideration, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid in advance and since there was prohibition of registration of revenue documents, the time was not fixed in the sale agreement. It is also his case that the defendants have demanded more money and he has paid the total amount of Rs.6,90,000/- and the possession has been delivered in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants denied the very execution of the sale agreement and also the receipt of Rs.6,90,000/- by them. It is the main contention that documents were created and concocted to knock of the property of the defendants. The appellant’s counsel in support of his contention relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MRS. R.BANUMATHI AND MS.INDIRA BANERJEE reported in AIR 2018 SCC 5098. Referring to the said decision, the counsel brought para No.7 of the judgment to my notice and wherein it has been held that in order to obtain the relief of specific performance, the plaintiff has to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. In the case on hand, the plaintiff has already paid the amount of Rs.2,27,500/- as specified in the sale agreement and apart from that he has also paid the additional amount more than Rs.4,00,000/-, in all amounting to Rs.6,90,000/-. Hence, he is entitled for the relief of specific performance.
18. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAMAL KUMAR VS. PREMLATA JOSHI AND OTHERS reported in (2019) 3 SCC 704. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court while granting the relief of specific performance held that in order to grant the relief of specific performance, the pre-requisites are the readiness and willingness of plaintiff and there must be a valid and concluded contract between the parties and the plaintiff has to perform his part of contract and if so, to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract and whether it is equitable to grant the relief of specific performance in relation to the suit property or it causes any hardship to the defendants and if so, how and in what manner such relief can be granted and entitle the plaintiff to any other alternative remedy such as refund of earnest money with interest, then the Court can exercise its discretionary power to grant the relief. There is no dispute with regard to the principles laid down in the judgment referred above. In case of specific performance, the Court has to consider all these pre-requisites to grant the relief of specific performance.
19. Keeping in view of the principles laid down in the decision referred supra and also the contentions urged by both plaintiff and defendants, this Court has to re-appreciate the material available on record since the statutory appeal has been filed before the First Appellate Court and this Court, being First Appellate Court has to re-appreciate both the question of law and question of fact since it has got wide scope.
20. Having considered the scope of this Court, this Court has to analyse the evidence available on record. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 who is the plaintiff, it clearly reveals that he has reiterated the averments of the plaint in his affidavit filed in lieu of his chief examination and also got marked the documents. In the cross-examination, he admits that he is an Engineering graduate and also done M.I.E, LL.B. He admits that he is not having acquaintance with defendants but he volunteers that he was having acquaintance with one Annayappa, who died in the year 1984. He admits that he is not aware of the total extent of land in Sy.No.24/3 but he claims that he purchased 28 guntas of land out the said total extent. He also claims that Annayappa and his son Krishnappa have executed the sale agreement on 2.2.1984 and also executed the general power of attorney. He also admits that all the revenue documents were standing in the name of Annayappa. He volunteers that Ex.P2 sale agreement was got typed by Annayappa but he does not know where and on what date it was typed and further claims that the stamp paper was also purchased by him but he does not know from where it was purchased. He admits that in terms of Ex.P.2, the sale consideration was fixed for Rs.2,27,500/-. He claims that Krishnappa, Annayappa, Chinnamuniyappa @ Member Muniyappa were present at the time of giving the amount. In the cross-examination, he admits that Annayappa himself got obtained the signatures of others. He also admits that general power of attorney was typed on the stamp paper of Rs.20/- and the same was purchased by Annayappa and he does not know from where the stamp paper was purchased. He admits that when the sale agreement was executed, it was instructed to get the sale deed registered within a period of 2 to 3 months but the same was not registered within the said period.
21. He also admits that from 1984 to 2006, he did not give any notice to Palamma and also to Annayappa and others when the registration process was started to get the revenue documents registered. He admits that he is a law graduate and also having knowledge about the law. A suggestion was made that at no point of time, he made efforts to obtain the sale deed, he replied that Annayappa and his children were ill when he made an attempt to get the sale deed registered but he cannot tell the exact date when they fell ill. He claims that the shara has been made from the year 1984 to 1991. He further claims that whenever he made payment, the same was endorsed on Ex.P2. He claims that he has paid in all an amount of Rs.2,27,500/-.
22. It is elicited that he has not produced any documents for having encashed the cheques by defendants but he claims that he has requested for the statement from the Bank and he would produce the same before the Court, when he get the same. He further claims that many times he gave self cheque because, the Bank used to call him and gets the signature on the same. It is suggested that while executing Ex.P2, Annayappa, member Muniyappa, Krishnappa, Palamma and Lakshmamma were not present and they have not executed any such sale agreement and the same was denied. He claims that power of attorney was executed in the year 1991 but he cannot tell the date on which it was executed. It is suggested that Exs.P2 and 3 are created in order to knock of the property and the same was denied. He admits in the cross-examination that Palamma and Lakshmamma have given complaint against him that he has forged their signatures and the registration of the case but he claims that they have filed false case against him. He admits that investigation was conducted in C.C.No.11166/2007 and FIR was registered and charge sheet was filed and those documents Exs.D1 and D2 were confronted and he admits the same. He also admits that Exs.P2 and P3 were sent to forensic lab and the forensic lab has given the report stating that those signatures do not belong to the defendants. It is specifically suggested to P.W.1 that Annayappa and others have not executed the sale agreement or general power of attorney and the same are created for the purpose of filing false case before this Court and the same was denied.
23. The plaintiff in order to prove Ex.P2, examined one witness P.W.2-Chinnamuniyappa and in his evidence, he claims that he is having acquaintance with plaintiff from 1980 and sale agreement was executed in the year 1984 in terms of Ex.P2. He identified his signature at Ex.P2(b) and also identified the signature of Annayappa at Ex.P2(a). He was subjected to cross- examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that he does not remember when he has signed Ex.P2, but claims that it may be in the year 1984. He also claims that plaintiff and Annayappa came to his house and obtained his signature. No financial transaction was taken place in his presence and he is also not aware of the sale consideration. He further admits that when he signed Ex.P2 expect plaintiff and Annayappa, no other persons were present and he also did not read the contents of Ex.P2. There was no endorsements on the back of the document when he signed Ex.P2. He cannot tell who else have signed Ex.P2 except Annayappa and plaintiff. He further admits that plaintiff told him to sign the document, hence, he signed the same. Further, he admits that since plaintiff called him to give evidence, he has deposed before the Court. He admits that he is not having personal knowledge about Ex.P2. He further admits that in his presence Annayappa and Mallaiah have not signed Ex.P2, but he volunteers that the plaintiff called him to give evidence.
24. D.W.1 in his evidence reiterates the averments of the written statement filed in lieu of his chief examination. He also got marked the documents Exs.D6 to D21 other than the documents which were confronted to P.W.1. In the cross- examination, he admits that Annayappa had purchased the property and hence it is his self acquired property. He further admits that Annayappa and Mallaiah belong to the same Village, but he denies that both of them were having acquaintance with each other. He admits that he has received notice. It is suggested that after filing the suit, he has filed the private complaint and falsely deposing that possession is not delivered in favour of the plaintiff and the said suggestion was denied. He admits that Annayappa was looking after all his transactions by his own. He further admits that all the family members used to obey the words of Annayappa during his lifetime. It is suggested that they used to make the signature wherever Annayappa directs them to do so and accordingly, they have signed the sale agreement and power of attorney and the same was denied.
25. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence available before the Court, also the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, the main contentions of the appellant/plaintiff before this Court is that sale agreement was executed on 2.2.1984 and while executing the sale agreement, P.W.2 and other persons were also present and further he has paid the amount of advance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- and balance amount was paid by way of cheques on different dates. The defendants’ contention is that no such sale agreement or power of attorney was executed and all those documents were concocted only in order to knock of the property of the defendants. As the suit was filed for the relief of specific performance, the plaintiff has to prove the very execution of the sale agreement, which is marked at Ex.P2 and signatures are marked at Exs.P2(a) and P2(b). The defendants have denied the very execution of the sale agreement. The plaintiff in order to substantiate the claim that they have executed the sale agreement examined P.W.2 and in his evidence, he states that both plaintiff and one Annayappa went to his house and obtained his signature and no other persons were present. On perusal of Ex.P2-agreement, it not only bears the signature of P.W.2 but also bears the signature of other witnesses. No other witnesses have been examined before the Court.
26. Now this Court has to re-appreciate the evidence of P.W.2. On perusal of the same, he categorically admits that no talks were held in his presence with regard to executing the sale agreement and also no amount was paid in his presence and he also cannot tell so as to what was the sale consideration. He also admits that no other witnesses have signed in his presence and also he cannot tell except plaintiff and Annayappa, who else have signed Ex.P2. It is also pertinent to note that he admits that since plaintiff told him to sign the document, he has signed the same. Hence, it is clear that he is not aware of the contents of the document Ex.P2. It is his evidence that only plaintiff and Annayappa went to his house and obtained his signature and also he came to Court only at the instance of the plaintiff since the plaintiff requested him to come and give evidence.
27. Having considered the evidence of P.W.2 and also the evidence of P.W.1, it does not inspire the confidence of this Court that sale agreement was executed by the defendants.
P.W.1 is not an illiterate but a double graduate holding degree in Engineering and Law. He contends that stamp paper and contents of document are typed at the instance of Annayappa and also he cannot tell on what date general power of attorney was executed. It is also pertinent to note that he claims that he has paid sale consideration of Rs.2,27,500/- and also paid extra amount in all to the tune of Rs.6,90,000/-. The learned counsel for the plaintiff in his arguments contends that there is an endorsement for having made the additional payment. No doubt there is an endorsement on Ex.P2 but none of the witnesses have examined with regard to the additional payment. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that amounts were paid by way of cheques and the same is disputed by the defendants. Even though he admits in the cross-examination that he can produce the bank statement before the Court for having made the payment in all to the tune of Rs.6,90,000/-, he has not produced any document in support of the same. That apart, it is elicited that complaint was filed and the signatures on the sale agreement was sent to forensic lab and report was obtained. The report discloses that those signatures do not belong to defendants and also it is admitted fact that the case has been registered against the plaintiff.
28. Taking into consideration of all these facts and the power of granting the relief of specific performance is discretionary in nature and when the criminal case is registered against the plaintiff stating that the signature are forged, the Court cannot exercise its discretion in favour of the plaintiff. That apart, the claim of the plaintiff that there was a sale agreement and the same has not been proved and evidence of P.W.2 does not help the plaintiff in any way since he is not aware of the contents of the documents and he only claims that when he signed Ex.P2 only plaintiff and one Annayappa was present, but documents disclose that other parties have also signed Ex.P2 and none of the other witnesses have deposed that in the presence of P.W.2, the documents were executed. Plaintiff also did not produce the bank statement for having paid the additional amount and also mentioned in the sale agreement.
29. Taking into consideration of all these aspects, the Court below has rightly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence available on record in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff has not proved the very execution of the sale agreement and delivery of possession and also payment of sale consideration. This Court can reverse the findings of the Trial Court only if the material has been ignored by the Trial Court, but the Court below has rightly appreciated the materials both oral and documentary evidence available on record. Hence, there are no grounds to reverse the findings of the Trial Court and accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal.
30. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR