JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This is plaintiffs' appeal directed against judgment and decree of Sri S.N. Singh, learned Civil Judge, Orai who dismissed the Civil appeals nos. 205 of 1973 and 202 of 1973 on 17-8-1974 and affirmed the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit no. 225 of 1967 and original suit no. 138 of 1967 by which the claim of plaintiffs was dismissed by Sri N.L. Kureel, learned Munsif, Orai on 31-10-1973. Admittedly both the suits were connected in Original suit no. 226 of 1967. Plaintiffs Munna Singh and Smt. Raja Deja Beti Prayed for Specific Performance against defendants nos. 1, 3 and 4 directing them to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiffs, in respect of share in the plots detailed at the foot of the plaint, situate in village Loni, Pargana-Jalaun. Defendant no. 1 is Brij Behari, tenure-holder; defendants nos. 3 and 4 who are contesting respondents conceded that the disputed plots belonged to Sri Brij Behari and Hari Dass. 2 According to plaint Brij Behari was in need of money and so he executed the agreement to sell of the plots in dispute on 16-12-1965. A sum of Rs. 1500/- was advanced in cash. Balance was recoverable at the time of execution of the sale deed. 3. A sum of Rs. 500/- was also paid to defendant no. 1 by plaintiffs as the price of the standing crop in the said land so far as the extent of share of defendant no. 1 was concerned. 4. It was further alleged that defendants nos. 3 and 4 having full knowledge of the said agreement procured the sale deed in their favour on 18-11-1966 and 25-11-1966 from defendant no. 1. 5. Defendants nos. 3 and 4 also disputed the claim of plaintiff about Makai crop standing in that land in the year 1374 Fasli, giving rise to connected suit. 6. Defendant no. 1 conceded the claim of plaintiffs but defendants nos. 3 and 4 contested the suits on the ground that there was no agreement to sell the plots in favour of the plaintiffs executed by defendant no. 1 on 16-12-1965. The sale deeds executed in their favour were genuine. Plaintiffs had not sown the crop in dispute. Findings returned by the courts below on material points were that defendant no. 3 and 4 contested the suits on the ground that there was no agreement to sell the plots in favour of the plaintiffs executed by defendant no. 1 on 16-12-1965. The sale deeds executed in their favour were genuine. Plaintiffs had not sown the crop in dispute. Findings returned by the courts below on material points were that defendant no. 1 did not execute any agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiffs on 16-12-1965 for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. 7. It was further found that defendants nos. 3 and 4 had no knowledge of the plaintiff's agreement dated 16-12-1965 at the time of the execution of the sale deed in their favour by defendants. It was further found that plaintiffs had not sown the crops in dispute. 8. On behalf of the appellants it was pointed out that these findings are assailable in Second Appeal also as the courts below did not approach the case in proper perspective. The courts below ignored the statement of Brij Behari defendant no. 1 who figured as P.W. 1 and supported the claim of the plaintiffs. The courts below further overlooked the fact that stamp vendor was not examined in defence to rebut the allegations of plaintiffs that stamps were actually purchased on 16-12-1965 as was endorsed thereon. 9. I have carefully considered over the matter and perused the record. 1 have also gone through the statements of Brij Behari, defendant no. 1, P.W 1, Fundi Singh P.W. 2, Brij Behari, P.W. 3 Rustam Singh and the remaining P.Ws. 4 to 6 and witnesses examined in defence. Learned courts below have given a number of reasons for disbelieving the plaintiffs' case. 10. The plaintiffs' agreement to sell was unregistered. The scribe of the agreement was not examined. A number of discrepancies were pointed out in the statements of P.Ws. as discussed in the judgment of appellate court which need not be repeated here. I do not subscribe to the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the burden lay on the defendants to examine the stamp vendor. If the plaintiffs wanted to succeed the burden lay on them and not on the respondents to prove plaintiffs case contesting defendants alleged the agreement to sell as fictitious. Not a single document was filed by the plaintiffs to show that they entered possession over the disputed land from 16-12-1965. If the plaintiffs wanted to succeed the burden lay on them and not on the respondents to prove plaintiffs case contesting defendants alleged the agreement to sell as fictitious. Not a single document was filed by the plaintiffs to show that they entered possession over the disputed land from 16-12-1965. Learned courts below rightly pointed out that had the plaintiffs entered possession in 1372 Fasli Lekhpal or Qanungo must have recorded their possession in the relevant papers. That has not been done. Statements of defendant no. 1 was stigmatised as false and shaky and good reasons were given to disbelieve his statement in light of his conduction. These are concurrent findings of fact which can not be disturbed in second appeal. I do not rind any substantial question of law involved in these appeals. The court below did not commit any error in placing burden on plaintiffs to prove their case. 11. The admission of defendant no. 1 is not binding on defendants nos. 3 and 4. The case of defendants nos. 3 and 4 is fully corroborated by documentary evidence and circumstances of the case. 12. For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any merit in these appeals which are dismissed with costs.