Alikutty s/o Thonikadavath Mohammed Haji v. Joseph

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **RFA.No.20 OF 2015(B)** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 383/2009 DATED 27-06-2014 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR** ## **APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:** **ALIKUTTY S/O.THONIKADAVATH MOHAMMED HAJI, AGED 51 YEARS, ATHAVANAD AMSOM, DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH** ## **RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:** **JOSEPH S/O.M.116 NO.MANAYANIPURATH VEETTIL KURYAN, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682024** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.NITHIN ANCHAL R1 BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN** **THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-022019, THE COURT ON 29-07-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** RFA. 20/2015 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The respondent herein as the plaintiff, filed O.S.No.383/2009 before the Subordinate Court, Tirur for specific performance of an agreement. The said suit was decreed in his favour by a judgment and decree dated 27.6.2014. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, the defendant has preferred this appeal. 2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant as per their ranking before the trial court. 3. Shorn off the unnecessary details, the facts of the case are as follows: The plaint schedule property having an extent of 4 acres and 20 cents in Re.Sy.No.381/1 in Edayur amsom Athippatta belonged to the defendant. On 4.6.2019 he entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the property for a total sale consideration of Rs.32,00,000/- and out of the same an amount of Rs.27,00,000/- RFA. 20/2015 3 had been paid to defendant. As per the agreement the balance agreed to be paid was at the time of execution of sale deed; that was on or before 3.9.2009 and on such payment the defendant had to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. After execution of the agreement the plaintiff was put in possession of the property and then he planted 800 rubber saplings in the property. An amount of Rs.80,000/- was spent for the same. The plaintiff was always ready to execute the document but, the defendant had sought for extension of time upto 4.12.2009. Though the plaintiff approached the defendant on several occasions with the money, he evaded the execution of the document and hence, the suit for specific performance with alternative prayer for realisation of money. 4. The defendant filed written statement, inter alia contending that in fact the defendant had agreed to assign an extent of 32 acres of land with a metal crusher unit under the name and style 'Malabar Granite' with the machineries therein as per a sale agreement dated 20.3.2007 for a total sale consideration of RFA. 20/2015 4 Rs.1,90,00,000/- to the plaintiff. As per the agreement dated 20.3.2007 the defendant had agreed to assign 32 acres of land along with the co-owners, as per different documents. Even before the execution of the documents, the plaintiff had paid the entire sale consideration and the last document was executed on 18.6.2009. On the previous day the properties were measured out at the instance of the plaintiff and it was found that there was a shortage of 4 acres in extent. That resulted in exchange of words and as a result mediators viz. Muhammad Ismail and Avarankutty intervened and they went to the house of the plaintiff along with the defendant on 19.6.2009 and agreed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- for the deficit found in extent. The defendant paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on the same date and agreed to pay the balance within 20 days. The plaintiff insisted for an agreement, and thus he obtained the signature of the defendant and mediators in blank stamp papers and white papers. He agreed to return those papers on payment of the balance amount. Thereafter the plaintiff came to his house and received the money in the presence of mediators but the plaintiff RFA. 20/2015 5 told that he failed to take those papers with him, but he will destroy the same. Believing his words the defendant never demanded back those papers. The defendant and his partners are conducting an establishment namely 'Laila Metal Crusher' in the plaint schedule property and the same is in the possession of the defendant and his partners. The market value of that property will be more than Rs.1,50,00,000/- and so the allegation that the consideration fixed was Rs.32,00,000/- is without any basis and there is no such agreement to sell the property. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed, was the stand taken by the defendant. 5. Before the court below for the plaintiff, PWs1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. DW1 was examined and Ext.B1 was marked for the defendant. The court below after appreciation of the evidence decreed the suit for specific performance. 6. Heard Adv.G.S.Reghunath, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and Adv.Sri.P.B Krishnan the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. RFA. 20/2015 6 7. Ext.A1 dated 4.6.2009 and Ext.A2 dated 17.6.2009 are the two documents relied on by the plaintiff for getting a decree for specific performance. The recitals in Ext.A1 would show that the defendant agreed to alienate 4 acres and 20 cents of land for a total sale consideration of Rs.32,00,000/- within a period of three months from 4.6.2009. The advance sale consideration paid was Rs.27,00,000/-. So, according to the plaintiff the balance sale consideration to be paid on or before 3.9.2009 was Rs.5,00,000. Though he was ready and willing to pay the amount the document was not executed but he was put in possession of the plaint schedule property even on the date of execution of Ext.A1 and on the request of the defendant the time was extended upto 4.12.2009 by executing Ext.A2 agreement dated 17.6.2009 is the definite case put forth by the plaintiff. So by the second agreement, the time for execution of the sale deed was extended upto 4.12.2009. According to the plaintiff he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the sale deed was not executed as agreed to by the defendant and thus he committed breach of contract. RFA. 20/2015 7 8. The defence taken by the defendant is one of total denial of the plaint allegation. But it was contended that in fact there was an agreement for sale of a property having an extent of 32 acres with a crusher unit for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,90,00,000/between them. According to the defendant as per the said agreement the property was not transferred by single sale deed but different sale deeds were executed on various dates and the last document was executed on 18.6.2009. The records would reveal that the total extent of 32 acres of land was measured by the parties to avoid confusion with respect to the extent of the property and then a shortage of 4 acres was found in extent but by that time the entire sale consideration was paid. Thus, there arose some difference of opinion. So a mediation talk had taken effect due to the intervention of the mediators. Thereafter, an arrangement was made between the parties due to the intervention of mediators namely Muhammed Ismail and Avaran Kutty and it was finally settled pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as the value of the property found in deficit and then the defendant had paid an amount of RFA. 20/2015 8 Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.6.2009 and for payment of the balance, 20 days time was sought for. According to the defendant, the plaintiff insisted for a document for the same but as no document writer was present, he obtained signed blank stamp papers and plain papers from him on 19.6.2009 and thereafter misusing the said stamp papers in his possession, the documents were falsely created and produced as Exts. A1 and A2 and with the fabricated documents, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract. The defendant vehemently assert that pursuant to the transaction between the parties dated 20.3.2007, arrangement was made so as to pay money for the property which was found in deficit on measurement and no sale agreements as alleged by the plaintiff were made. 9. Therefore, the definite contention of the defendant is that no sale agreement was executed on 4.6.2009 or on 17.6.2009 for sale of 4 acres and 20 cents of land and so the plaintiff is not entitled to get a decree for specific performance of contract. At the outset, it is to be noted that the contention raised by the defendant RFA. 20/2015 9 regarding the shortage of 4 acres 7 cents, out of 32 acres alienated by him to the plaintiff is not denied but, the contention that the agreements were fabricated by him so as to get a decree for specific performance is vehemently denied by the plaintiff. Admittedly Ext.A8 is the copy of the sale agreement executed on 20.3.2007 for sale of the total extent of 32 acres with a crusher unit. As PW1 the plaintiff has denied the intervention of the mediators by name Muhammad Ismail and Avarankutty as well the arrangement to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as the value of the property found in deficit and payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.6.2009 and subsequent payment of the balance after 20 days. But the agreement dated 20.3.2007 (A8) for 32 acres of land and crusher unit for a total sum of Rs.1,90,00,000/- is not disputed. In fact it was produced by the plaintiff and marked when confronted with the defendant. The defendant has specifically mentioned it in his written statement but there is no whisper regarding the same in the plaint. A perusal of this document would show that the payment of the sale consideration was on various dates and the payments were RFA. 20/2015 10 endorsed on the reverse side of the agreement. The endorsement would further reveal that the alienation of the land involved in Ext.A8 was by various sale deeds on different dates. The last document in the above transaction was registered on 18.6.2009 and that was admitted by the plaintiff. According to DW1 the defendant the entire property was measured on 17.6.2009, then there arose a difference of opinion between the parties as there was deficit in extent and thereafter on 19.6.2009, he along with the mediators went to the residence of the plaintiff and fixed the value of the land found in deficit as Rs.10,00,000/-. But as time was getting late it was not possible to get a document executed incorporating the terms of agreement as insisted by the plaintiff, the defendant affixed his signatures as demanded in blank stamp papers on the understanding that it will be returned to him on payment of the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and as fixed by the parties on the 20[th] day itself, he paid the balance amount of Rs.9,00,000/- and thus the entire transaction was closed but the plaintiff failed to return the stamp papers entrusted to him and thereby , the plaintiff had RFA. 20/2015 11 obtained an opportunity to raise a false case against him after manipulating those documents. According to the defendant, in total he is having 6 acres of land which includes the suit property and it is lying as one plot along with the plot owned by his partners namely Muhammed Ismail and Sainudeen and thereby the total extent of land is 12 acres and the metal crusher by name 'Laila Metal Crusher' is situated in the said 12 acres of land. So according to him there is no property as 4 acres 20 cents as alleged by the plaintiff so as to execute a sale deed on the basis of Exts.A1 and Exts.A2, and he refutes the plaintiff's case vociferously. 10. As there was a property transaction between the parties on the basis of Ext.A8, the question to be looked into is whether the contention raised by the defendant that the suit documents are forged documents cooked up by the plaintiff inorder to cheat him and to snatch away his property, is correct or atleast probable. Execution of Ext.A8 was admitted by the plaintiff. A perusal of the Ext A8 would show that by this agreement dated 20.3.2007 the defendant had agreed to alienate 32 acres of land which is owned by RFA. 20/2015 12 him and others for the total sum of Rs.1,90,00,000/- which includes a registered metal crusher unit by name 'Malabar Granite' with all accessories. The advance amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as per the agreement was Rs.25,00,000/-. Admittedly, the property was transferred by different documents in accordance with various payments on different dates, and endorsements were made by the defendant on the reverse side of Ext.A8. The endorsements would reveal that apart from the payment of Rs.25 lakhs, payment effected on various dates was as follows: 4.6.2007 Rs. 10,00,000/- 21.7.2007 Rs. 5,00,000/- - 29.3.2007 Rs. 5,00,000/- - 10.4.2007 Rs. 20,00,000/- - 30.4.2007 Rs. 17,00,000/- - 8.5.2007 Rs. 8,00,000/- - 29.5.2007 Rs. 15,00,000/12.7.2007 Rs. 35,00,000/- RFA. 20/2015 13 So, the total payment was Rs.1,40,00,000/- upto 21.7.2007. Therefore, the balance out of Rs.1,90,00,000/- was Rs.50,00,000/-. 11. It is admitted that the last document was executed on 15.6.2009 and it was registered on 18.6.2009. The endorsement on the reverse side of Ext.A8 dated 10.9.2007 would show that as there was deficit of 4.07 acres of land it was decided that the plaintiff had to pay only Rs.39,00,000/- as the value of the property found in deficit was reduced and such an arrangement was made as agreed to by the parties on 10.9.2007. The above referred endorsement would show that on 10.9.2007 itself it was decided by the parties to reduce the value of the property found in deficit. According to the plaintiff as such a decision was made on 10.9.2007, there was no possibility or necessity of entrusting signed stamp papers/blank papers by the defendant on a subsequent date. But as referred above it is significant to note that the last document pursuant to Ext.A8 was registered only 18.6.2009. So the case of the defendant that he paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.6.2009 and agreed to pay the balance within 20 days as per the RFA. 20/2015 14 arrangement made between them cannot be simply taken as a false or improbable contention. A perusal of the record shows that the payment of balance amount due pursuant to Ext.A8 sale agreement was on 15.11.2007 and on 29.2.2008 for Rs. 20,00,000/- and Rs.17,00,000/- respectively. It has also come out from the evidence of DW1 that the balance of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid on the date of registration of Ext.B1,the last document. Thus the total amount paid after 10.9.2007 was 39,00,000/- and that tallies with the defendant's case. But of-course some more clarity is required in this transaction. It is a fact that the relationship between parties was so cordial till the deficit was found in extent. According to the defendant at the time of the last transaction the plaintiff insisted for documents for the said arrangement and thus on 19.6.2009 as the defendant was not having any documents with him and the document writer was not available, he happened to affix his signatures in blank stamp papers and in white papers along with the mediators and entrusted it to the plaintiff. But when the balance amount was paid by the defendant, the said papers were not RFA. 20/2015 15 returned to him and he did not insist for the same believing the words of the plaintiff that he forgot to bring the same when he came to the residence of the defendant to collect the balance amount and the promise that he would destroy the same. But it was realized by the defendant on receipt of the lawyer notice that the plaintiff did not destroy the same and he has concocted documents and thus the two agreements produced as Exts.A1 and A2 were falsely created by him, was the definite and specific stand of the defendant. 12. It is pertinent to note that the defendant could not examine any of the mediators who alleged to have intervened in the transaction to substantiate his case. So also no one was examined by both sides to prove when exactly the 32 acres was measured. But, PW1 had admitted that the properties pursuant to Ext.A8 agreement dated 20.3.2007 was transferred on different dates and payments were also made on different dates and no measurement was conducted on 20.3.2007. He has also admitted that the time for performance of contract was extended till 16.6.2009. But his case is that two agreements were also executed on RFA. 20/2015 16 4.6.2009(Ext.A1) and 17.6.2009 (A2) for another 4.20 cents in the midst of this transaction before honoring the earlier commitments. How far it is believable is the question to be considered especially when he admitted that the last document registered pursuant to Ext.A8 agreement was on 18.6.2009 and it was written on 15.6.2009. He has also admitted that the original of Ext.A8 is in his possession and he could produce it, but not produced. So each and every circumstances have to be scanned properly to find out the real facts transpired in this transaction. Whether Exts.A1 and A2 are bogus documents as contended by the defendant or whether those documents are genuine documents executed with the intention to alienate the property of the defendant to the plaintiff, have to be ascertained only on a meticulous evaluation and marshalling of the evidence available on record. According to the plaintiff, he paid Rs.27,00,000/- by borrowing the same from his friend Antony, who was examined as PW2 and paid the same to the defendant and he was having funds with him to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. RFA. 20/2015 17 13. At the outset it is to be noted that though there was absolutely no reference about Ext.A8 sale agreement in the plaint filed by the plaintiff, in the witness box he had admitted that such a document was executed and properties have been alienated by executing various documents. According to him, he agreed for extension of the time fixed for that transaction upto 16.6.2009 as requested by the defendant and the last document was executed on 18.6.2009. So that transaction which started on 20.3.2007 extended upto 18.6.2009 and culminated by payment of Rs.10,00,000/- as per the version of the defendant. Of-course, there was slight variation to the amount referred to in Ext.A8 to be adjusted for the deficit with respect to Ext.A8 and the written statement, but DW1 had with clarity deposed that it was Rs.11,00,000/- and the plaintiff also admitted that such a deduction was given in the total consideration. The intention of the parties is reflected in the contents of the document marked as Ext.A8. Here, the subsequent agreements are involved in the dispute and are for adjudication of the claim put forth by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff in RFA. 20/2015 18 between, again two sale agreements were executed. In order to appreciate the rival contention, it would be necessary to take note of the following important and significant facts: 14. Firstly, the last deed executed pursuant to Ext.A8 was dated 18.6.2009. Ext.B1 is the copy of the said deed. It could be gathered from the evidence that the relationship of the parties have strained mainly because of the fact that deficit was found in the total extent of land proposed to be sold to the plaintiff as per Ext.A8. The plaintiff had admitted before the court that he was convinced with the character of the defendant by that time. If that be so in such a situation again agreements were executed on 4.6.2009 and on 17.6.2009 for sale of another property that too without effecting measurement to ascertain the actual extent for a total sum of Rs.32,00,000/-, appears to be an unbelievable story, rather an improbable one. 15. Secondly, the time fixed for execution of the sale deed was three months and if that be so, it will be over only by 3.9.2009. But again another agreement (Ext.A2) was executed on 17.6.2009 RFA. 20/2015 19 extending the period upto 4.12.2009. The second agreement that is Ext.A2 was executed within three months, the time fixed as per Ext.A1. If an extension of time was made between the parties then it could be by making an endorsement in the document itself. It was not necessary to execute another document for the same that too immediately after a few days, more precisely within 13 days of Ext. A1, and hence it also appears to be strange or an anomalous situation. 16. The most important point to be noted is that the plaintiff has a case that the possession of the property was handed over to him on the date of execution of Ext.A1 document. But when he was examined before the court it was clearly revealed that he could not specifically identify the property. He was unable to say about the four boundaries of the property. Of course he has deposed that 4 acres is a part of 6 acres of land owned by the defendant but evidence was not let in so as to identify the property out the total extent of 6 acres. It could also be gathered from the evidence that the plaint schedule property is lying within 12 acres of land and this RFA. 20/2015 20 6 acres and another 6 acres of land owned by the partners of the defendant lie as a single plot. PW1 was not able to give the details regarding the identity of the property though he claims that he was put in possession on the date of execution of the document itself and planted it with rubber saplings. The inability of the plaintiff to identify the property, reveals that the case set up by him is improbable. ## In **Pawan Kumar Dutt and another v. Shakuntala Devi and others [(2010) 15 SCC 601]** it was held as follows **:** **“** 7. ****** The courts are not expected to pass a decree which is not capable of enforcement in the courts of law. If the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is to be accepted and if a decree is to be granted for specific performance, without identification of the suit property, it will not be possible to enforce such a decree.” 17. The next point to be noted is that though the plaintiff had raised an allegation that he had already spent Rs.80,000/- for planting rubber saplings, no evidence was adduced to substantiate the said allegation. It is also to be noted that the plaintiff has no case that execution of Exts.A1 and A2 was because deficit of 4 acres RFA. 20/2015 21 and 7 cents was found in the property in Ext.A8 agreement and he has no such case. If the 4 acres and 20 cents were planted with rubber saplings, definitely he could substantiate the same by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. No iota of evidence is available on record to prove this assertion except the bald statement of the plaintiff and it also stands as a glaring circumstance against his case. 18. Yet another glaring circumstance to doubt the genuineness of the story projected by the plaintiff is that, he has put forth another claim that after possession of the property was handed over to him, he remitted tax for the property, but the receipt has not been produced before the court to substantiate his case. The other circumstance which is blazing to disprove the case of the plaintiff is regarding the payment of an amount of Rs.27,00,000/- as advance amount. His case is that he borrowed Rs.27,00,000/- from PW2 and handed over the same to the defendant, but as it was not flown through known channels, it is not legally possible. Of course PW2 had also deposed so. But the transaction was not one through a RFA. 20/2015 22 bank. Dealing with such a huge amount directly is not legally possible even in the year 2007. Like that the plaintiff had a case that he returned it to PW2 after a few days. Except the interested testimony of PW2 no reliable and clear documentary evidence was available to support the case of the plaintiff. Then it is to be noted that the plaintiff has produced Ext.A5 a cash receipt issued from the Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Limited dated 5.6.2009. This receipt would show that Rs.25,50,000/- was received by the Finance Company as the closing account of Alikutty (the defendant). According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff the said amount was paid by the defendant with the advance amount received by him pursuant to Ext.A1 sale agreement. But it is significant to note that in the chief affidavit or in the cross examination such an assertion was not seen raised by the plaintiff. But the court below had made a reference in the judgment that the said amount was remitted by the defendant with the advance consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- received by him from the plaintiff on 4.6.2009. But it is impossible to have such an inference mainly for the reason that RFA. 20/2015 23 the plaintiff had not made such a plea in the plaint or in the chief affidavit. It is also significant to note that this receipt itself would show that an inter branch transfer was made and so it could only be presumed that the amount received from the account of the defendant in the Head Office at Kochi had been adjusted towards his loan account in the Branch at Thrissur. Of-course Ext.A5 was produced before the court by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, it was as entrusted by him on the basis of Ext.A9 authorization letter dated 5.6.2009 and both Exts.A5 and A9 were before registration of Ext.B1 and hence the production of the receipt by the plaintiff will not prove that the amount had been remitted by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant. It is also revealed from Ext.A9 that the defendant had addressed the Manager of the finance company to hand over the documents entrusted by him towards the loan transaction, to the plaintiff as per the mutual understanding. Hence the production of Ext.A5 will not in anyway help the plaintiff to substantiate his case. The next point to be noted is that the plaintiff had a case that he had issued a notice on RFA. 20/2015 24 30.3.2008 on failure to execute the sale deed for the balance extent of property pursuant to Ext.A8. But the copy of the said notice was not produced by the plaintiff. So also a perusal of the judgment of the court below would show that even in the absence of the pleading in the plaint, there was an observation that the shortage in extent was 4 acres and 7 cents and it was found while measuring the property and it was an admitted fact and the defendant agreed to pay 11 lakhs towards the value of the property found in lesser extent. In fact, there is no such plea and no averment in the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in lieu of examination in chief. There is no whisper about the transaction between the parties dated 20.3.2007 (Ext.A8) in the plaint. It has come out in evidence that the defendant is a native of Palakkad and the plaintiff is a resident of Ernakulam District. Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 are seen executed at Kothamangalam where both parties have no business transaction and the property involved is also lying in Palakkad District. According to the defendant, since the documents are forged documents, it happened to be executed through a document writer RFA. 20/2015 25 of Kothamangalam, who was amenable for such actions and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming from the side of the plaintiff for execution of the said document as well Ext.A2 by a document writer from Kothamangalam. When all these points are gathered together the case put forth by the defendant appears to be more probable. Moreover it is difficult to believe the case projected by the plaintiff that before the entire transaction pursuant to Ext A8 was over and when the relationship between the two was broken atleast to some extent or the warmth was lost or reduced due to the confusion regarding the extent of land as fairly admitted by the plaintiff, again he entered into other sale agreements with the defendant by paying a considerable amount out of the total sale consideration, as true. It is well settled that in a civil case it is not expected to adduce evidence beyond reasonable doubt to prove the transaction involved. In **Moidu v. Kunhavulla [2007 (4) KLT SN 61]** this Court has observed as follows “The appreciation of evidence in civil cases has to be on the preponderance of probabilities. The doctrine of proof beyond doubt does not apply. What is meant by preponderance of probabilities? RFA. 20/2015 26 How are the probabilities to be weighed? These depend on facts and circumstances of each case. But, in doing so, there are certain cardinal principles of law that have to be followed. While a presumption could be rebutted even by a presumption, that which has to displace the former has to be sufficient enough to do so. Similarly, when evidence in rebuttal of a presumption is to be looked for in a civil case, that evidence must be of such value which cannot but lead to conclusion that the probability of the case arrived at on the basis of the presumption cannot continue to hold on the face of the evidence that would stand up in rebuttal of the presumption raised. In a civil case, inference of facts in issue has to be drawn on preponderance of probabilities, on a balance of evidence on the record. In appreciating the evidence, the Courts have to apply the test of human probabilities and the appreciation of evidence must be from an ordinary reasonable human point of view. The evidence is to be weighed and the case cannot be decided on conjectures and surmises. The plaintiff is not required to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. What the Courts have to see is whether the evidence, when read as a whole, appears to have a ring of truth and once such impression is gained, they must scrutinize the evidence keeping in view the deficiencies, draw-backs and infirmities pointed out in the evidence and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence.” 19. Analysing the evidence, I am of the opinion that the materials on record indicate and probablise the case of the defendant that Exts.A1 and A2 documents are bogus documents RFA. 20/2015 27 created by the plaintiff misusing the signed stamp papers and other blank papers entrusted/happened to be in his possession and hence, the question whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract and whether other ingredients in a suit for specific performance are available or not need not be looked into. 20. So in short, on a meticulous evaluation of the pleadings and the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the finding by the court below that the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for a specific performance of contract is not legally correct and legally justified and therefore it warrants an interference and hence, I find that the appeal succeeds, and no relief can be granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree are set aside leaving the parties to bear their respective costs. **==> picture [32 x 14] intentionally omitted <==** 29.07.2019. SHIRCY V., JUDGE