S. S. CHADHA, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a suit praying for a decree to the effect that the plaintiff is the rightful owner by purchase from defendant No. 1 of the tractor Hindustan-50, registration No. DLL 7253 bearing engine No. 69124283, chassis No. HT 6783 Model 1969 and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from claiming the possession of the tractor and from interfering in the possession and custody of tractor with the plaintiff. The suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 28th Nov. , 1977 passed by Shri Jaspal Singh, Additional District Judge, Delhi. This is first appeal of the defendants. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the allegations made in the plaint the plaintiff purchased the tractor Hindustan-50 bearing registration No. DLL 7253, Engine No. 69124283, Chassis No. HT 6783, Model 1969 from defendant No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 44,100. 00 on 2nd Sept. , 1974; that the consideration for purchase was withdrawn from the Banks by the plaintiff on 2nd Sept. , 1974, i. e. , Rs. 11,000. 00 from Home Saving A/c No. 137 from Central Bank of India, Nangal Dewat branch and Rs. 30,000. 00 from his saving bank A/c No. 305 from the Bank of India, Gurgaon branch; that the plaintiff had Rs. 3,100. 00 from his own saving kept at home and that the amount of Rs. 44. 100. 00 was paid to defendant No. 1 in Gurgaon on 2nd Sept. , 1974. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the registration book of the tractor was not with defendant No. 1 on 2nd Sept. , 1974 which was alleged by defendant No. 1 to have been lost by him and he undertook to obtain the duplicate registration book from the Transport Authority and then to get the tractor transferred in the name of the plaintiff from the Transport Authority. This payment of Rs. 44,100. 00 is alleged to have been made in treasury office at Gurgaon in the presence of Shri K. L. Jatrana, Treasury Officer as he was known to both the parties being resident of neighbouring village Bijwasan, Delhi. This payment of Rs. 44,100. 00 is alleged to have been made in treasury office at Gurgaon in the presence of Shri K. L. Jatrana, Treasury Officer as he was known to both the parties being resident of neighbouring village Bijwasan, Delhi. The plea further is that it was thought proper to get an affidavit of defendant No. 1 attested, acknowledging the receipt of final full payment and transfer of tractor which was got attested from a Oath Commissioner, Gurgaon and the deponent was identified by Shri Wali Mohammad, Advocate and by Shri Behari Lal, Assistant Treasury Officer at the instance of Shri K. L. Jatrana, Treasury Officer. According to the plaintiff the possession of the said tractor was handed over by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff on 2nd Sept. , 1974. The plaintiff is alleged to have been dispossessed of the said tractor because of the theft committed by defendants 2 and 3 along with four others during the night of 30th April, 1977 and 1st May, 1977. A police report was lodged in police post Mahipal Pur, Police Station Mehrauli, New Delhi and the tractor was found abandoned near village Kakrola Dairy, Delhi by the police. Some observations were made in the criminal proceedings that as the ownership and title of the tractor was disputed and doubtful, the matter was of a civil nature. It is for this reason that the plaintiff has instituted the suit claiming the reliefs. ( 3 ) IN the joint written statement by thedefendants, who are appellants herein, the sale of the tractor to the plaintiff is emphatically denied. It is pleaded that the said tractor was purchased by defendant No. 1 in his own name in the year 1970; that the said tractor was the subject-matter of hire- purchase agreement between defendant No. 1 and the New Bank of India Limited, Gurgaon from whom defendant No. 1 had taken a loan of Rs. 28,000. 00 and in consideration of this loan the said tractor was hypothecated to the said bank and that it was and is registered in the name of defendant No. 1 in the Transport Authority. There is a complete denial of the payment of Rs. 44,100. 00 or any other amount on 2nd Sept. , 1974 or the execution of any affidavit. There is a complete denial of the payment of Rs. 44,100. 00 or any other amount on 2nd Sept. , 1974 or the execution of any affidavit. It is pleaded that the affidavit is a piece of forgery perpetrated by the plaintiff by entering into criminal conspiracy with witnesses namely, Shri Jatrana, Shri Wali Mohammad and Shri Behari Lal who have acted in furtherance of their common design to cook up false evidence against defendant No. 1. The defendants claim to be in possession of the said tractor up to the time of the lodging of FIR by the plaintiff. There is however no denial of the proceedings in the Criminal Court. ( 4 ) THE parties went to trial on the following issues : (1) Whether the plaintiff had purchased the tractor in question from defendant No. 1 as alleged in the plaint ? (2) Whether the plaintiff had made payment of Rs. 44,100. 00 to defendant No. 1 towards the sale price of the tractor as alleged in the plaint ? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as craved for ? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ? (5) Relief. ( 5 ) THE learned Additional District Judge took great pains in reproducing the gist of the entire oral and documentary evidence placed on the record and appreciating the same. He referred to the statement of Public Witness 1 Shri Rajesh Chand Jain and Public Witness 2 Shri Rattan Lal Jain, the officials from the two banks. They placed on record the certified copies of the statements of account and deposed respectively thatthe sums of Rs. 30,000. 00 and Rs. 11,000. 00 were withdrawn by the plaintiff on 2nd Sept. , 1974. Reference is also made to the statement of the plaintiff that the remaining amount of Rs. 3,100. 00 was lying in his house and thus the plaintiff had in his possession the consideration of the sale transaction. The affidavit Ext. Public Witness 7/1 dated 2nd Sept. , 1974 and the evidence comprising of the statements of the plaintiff, Shri Ram Singh, Shri K. L. Jatrana, Shri Behari Lal and Shri Govind Lal Malik in that regard were then analysed. A conclusion was drawn that affidavit Ext. Public Witness 7/1 was duly executed by defendant No. 1. The affidavit Ext. Public Witness 7/1 dated 2nd Sept. , 1974 and the evidence comprising of the statements of the plaintiff, Shri Ram Singh, Shri K. L. Jatrana, Shri Behari Lal and Shri Govind Lal Malik in that regard were then analysed. A conclusion was drawn that affidavit Ext. Public Witness 7/1 was duly executed by defendant No. 1. Reference was made to the evidence led by the plaintiff to establish that he was in possession of the tractor after its pur chase on 2nd Sept. , 1974. The evidence in the rebuttal was then discussed. The finding on Issues 1 and 2 was recorded against the defendants. In the result the decree under appeal was granted as prayed. ( 6 ) THE only documentary evidence relating to the transaction of the sale of the tractor, to the receipt of the payment from the plaintiff by defendant No. 1 and the transfer of the possession of the tractor is contained in Ext. Public Witness 7/1. The learned Additional District Judge strongly relied upon this document and it is for this reason that Shri S. B. Upadhaya, the learned counsel for the appellants firstly invites our attention to several circumstances against the reception of this evidence. He urges that this document is of a suspicious nature and not admissible in the evidence. The first objection is to the verification of the affidavit. Ordinarily the verification should be signed by the person making it and state the date on which and the place at which it was signed. The verification of Ex. Public Witness 7/1 has been signed by Shri Mehar Singh without specifying the date and place of the execution of the affidavit. A defect in verification is only an irregularity and not fatal. It is no ground in rejecting the affidavit. Moreover, the date and place of execution is available on the document itself in the attestation by the Oath Commissioner, i. e. , 2nd Sept. , 1974 and the place at Gurgaon. The next objection raised is to theaffidavit in a language not known to the deponent as the signatures of Shri Mehar Singh are in Urdu. It is urged that he does not understand the language in which this document is drawn and, therefore, is not bound by the statements contained therein. , 1974 and the place at Gurgaon. The next objection raised is to theaffidavit in a language not known to the deponent as the signatures of Shri Mehar Singh are in Urdu. It is urged that he does not understand the language in which this document is drawn and, therefore, is not bound by the statements contained therein. Shri Gobind Lal Malik, Advocate, Gurgaon as Public Witness 12 deposes that he had acted as Oath Commissioner at Gurgaon, and that the contents of Ext. Public Witness 7/1 were read over and explained to the deponent Shri Mehar Singh who signed the same in his presence after admitting the contents thereof to be correct. The only suggestion in the cross-examination put to Public Witness 12 is that he had deposed falsely and this is denied. The witness reiterated that he got the signatures of the deponent in his presence at two places on Ext. Public Witness 7/1. Shri Malik who is an Advocate and Oath Commissioner, is an officer of the Court. His testimony cannot be brushed aside merely on the allegation that he attested this affidavit at the instance of Treasury Officer, Gurgaon. ( 7 ) REFERENCE is then made by the counsel to the statements of the plaintiff as Public Witness 7, Public Witness 9 Shri Ram Singh, Public Witness 10 Shri K. L. jatrana and Public Witness 11 Shri Behari Lal. According to him the testimony of Shri Behari Lal is not trustworthy as he is a subordinate of Shri K. L. Jatrana who is related to the plaintiff and as the witness did not know Shri Mehar Singh prior to the execution of Ext. Public Witness 7/1, he was not in a position to identify Shri Mehar Singh before the Oath Commissioner. Relying upon the statement of Shri Behari Lal that no lawyer had identified the deponent Shri Mehar Singh in his presence, a doubt is cast to the identification of Shri Mehar Singh by Shri Wali Mohammad, Advocate. The counsel also wants this Court to draw an adverse inference from the non-production of Shri Mohammad, Advocate who had identified Shri Mehar Singh. These submissions again cannot stand close scrutiny. Both Shri Rain Singh and Shri K. L. Jatrana have deposed as to the necessity of the execution of the affidavit and the factum of its execution. The counsel also wants this Court to draw an adverse inference from the non-production of Shri Mohammad, Advocate who had identified Shri Mehar Singh. These submissions again cannot stand close scrutiny. Both Shri Rain Singh and Shri K. L. Jatrana have deposed as to the necessity of the execution of the affidavit and the factum of its execution. Even the defendants have admitted in their deposition that an affidavit is necessary in the terms of Ext. Public Witness 7/1 when a tractor is to be transferred to another person. They themselves obtained similar affidavits from the sellers of the two tractors purchased by them. The material witness to the execution and attestation of the affidavit is Public Witness 12 Shri Gobind Lal Malik, Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is engrossed on a stamp paper of Rs. 3. 00 purchased by Shri Mehar Singh on 2nd Sept. , 1974 and there is an endorsement of the stamp vendor to that effect on the back of Ext. Public Witness 7/1. The affidavit records that the deponent had sold his tractor No. DLL 7253 etc. , to Shri Mahendra Singh s/o Shri Daryo Singh of village Nangal Dewat, Suba Delhi, that he had received full and final payment from the purchaser and that he had no objection if the above tractor be transferred in the name of Shri Mahendra Singh s/o Shri Daryo Singh. The affidavit is signed and verified by Shri Mehar Singh. Shri Wali Mohammad, Advocate identifies the deponent who signed in his presence under his signatures put on the affidavit itself. Shri Behari Lal says in the endorsement on the affidavit that he knows Shri Mehar Singh s/o Shri Munni Lal r/o village Nangal Dewat and he has signed in his presence. The affidavit is attested by the Oath Commissioner, Gurgaon on 2nd Sept. , 1974 under his signatures and stamp. No cross-examination is directed to Shri Gobind Lal Malik as to the identification of the deponent by Shri Wali Mohammad, Advocate or to the identification of Shri Behari Lal. The due execution of the affidavit is thus clearly established on the record. It is highly improbable that this affidavit was fabricated on 2nd Sept. , 1974 by the purchase of stamp paper in the name of Shri Mehar Singh on 2nd Sept. The due execution of the affidavit is thus clearly established on the record. It is highly improbable that this affidavit was fabricated on 2nd Sept. , 1974 by the purchase of stamp paper in the name of Shri Mehar Singh on 2nd Sept. , 1974 and then getting it attested in the absence of the deponent by identification of Shri Wali Mohammad, Advocate. There is a presumption that duties are performed in a normal manner. Shri Gobind Lal Malik, Oath Commissioner is a responsible officer of the Court and there is no reason as to why he should attest an affidavit on 2nd Sept. , 1974 with a view to lay a false claim to the said tractor of the appellants almost three years later on 1st May, 1977. The learned Additional District Judge had also compared the signatures of Shri Mehar Singh on the affidavit with the admitted signatures on the record of the suit and expressed an opinion as to the identity of the person who made the signatures on Ext. Public Witness 7/1 and the admitted signatures. He opined that the same have been made by the same person. Persons do not execute documents or put their signatures on documents without intending it to be binding on them. This is not the normal course of human conduct. The appellants made no attempts to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff by production of any expert evidence as to the signatures of Shri Mehar Singh on Ext. Public Witness 7/1. Shri Wali Mohammad, Advocate may not have been produced by the plaintiff as he was known to Shri Mehar Singh because of the identification. No adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiff for non-production of Shri Wali Mohammad, Advocate. ( 8 ) THE next reference of the counsel is to the alleged contradictory evidence of the plaintiff to the sale consideration. There are discrepancies in the stand of the plaintiff and the evidence produced on the record, but those discrepancies are not material. The plaintiff did not allege in the plaint about the payment of Rs. 500. 00 as advance towards the purchase of the said tractor though stated in evidence. There is also a discrepancy in the statement of the plaintiff when he stated that he had handed over Rs. 43,600. The plaintiff did not allege in the plaint about the payment of Rs. 500. 00 as advance towards the purchase of the said tractor though stated in evidence. There is also a discrepancy in the statement of the plaintiff when he stated that he had handed over Rs. 43,600. 00 in cash to Shri Ram Singh and Shri K. L. Jatrana who after counting the amount had handed over Rs. 41,500. 00 to Shri Mehar Singh and the remaining Rs. 3,600. 00 was kept by Shri Ram Singh Pradhan as defendant No. 1 and his sons were not in possession of the registration document pertaining to the ownership of the said tractor. The document Ext. Public Witness 7/1 records the receipt of full and final payment from the purchaser as against the case now set up in the plaint. There is, in our view, cogent and convincing evidence on the record as to the withdrawal by the plaintiff of Rs. 30,000. 00 from the Bank of India and Rs. 11,000. 00 from the Central Bank of India on 2nd Sept. , 1974 as contained in the statements of accounts from the banks and in the statement of the plaintiff. No suggestion is given to the plaintiff that this amount of Rs. 41,000. 00 was needed for any other purposes by the plaintiff or utilised by him in his business. The inference is irresistible that this withdrawal of Rs. 41,000. 00 from the banks together with the cash of Rs. 3,100. 00 available with the plaintiff, was for the sale consideration of the said tractor. The defendants were not in possession of the original registration book as the registration book Ext. Public Witness 1/a shows that the duplicate was issued on 18th Dec. , 1974. The version of the plaintiff that a sum of Rs. 3,600. 00 was retained and was to be given to the defendants after the documents were handed over to the plaintiff is more plausible. All the witnesses of the plaintiff are categorical as to the quantum of sale consideration i. e. , Rs. 44,100. 00. There is no inconsistency on that count. The variations in their statements as to the payment of Rs. 41. 500. 00 (and not Rs. 40,600. 00) is minor. All the witnesses of the plaintiff are categorical as to the quantum of sale consideration i. e. , Rs. 44,100. 00. There is no inconsistency on that count. The variations in their statements as to the payment of Rs. 41. 500. 00 (and not Rs. 40,600. 00) is minor. We are unable to accept the contention that ex facie inconsistencies in the evidence should have resulted in discarding the entire evidence of the plaintiff. ( 9 ) THE learned Additional District Judge has referred in detail to the evidence of the plaintiff to return the finding that he was in possession of the tractor after its purchase on 2nd Sept. , 1974. No serious challenge is made by the counsel for the appellants to that finding in his submissions in this Court. The oral as well as documentary evidence shows that the plaintiff had dealt with the tractor bearing No. DLL 7253 as owner from Sept. 2,1974 as he was purchasing dieasel for this tractor, getting it repaired and was seen using the same in his fields till 1st May, 1977. There is absolutely no evidence in rebuttal by the defendants as to their possession of the said tractor during this period except the two vouchers Exts. D-l and D-2 which do not show on the face of the documents that the diesel was purchased for tractor bearing No. DLL 7253. ( 10 ) THERE is also some additional evidence on the record which was not adverted to by the learned Additional District Judge. In Para 10 of the plaint the allegations are that defendant No. 1 after a period of about three months from the transferof the tractor No. DLL 7253 purchased another tractor Hindustan-50 which he kept for about a year and the same was also transferred by him and that thereafter about a year back defendant No. 1 again purchased Kirloskar make tractor which is still in his possession. (The plaint is dated 6th June, 1977 ). In the corresponding paragraph of the written statement it is denied that defendant No. 1 purchased any tractor three months after he allegedly sold tractor. No. DLL 7253 to the plaintiff. It is however, admitted that defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had purchased a Kirloskar tractor and it is also admitted that the same is still with them. In the corresponding paragraph of the written statement it is denied that defendant No. 1 purchased any tractor three months after he allegedly sold tractor. No. DLL 7253 to the plaintiff. It is however, admitted that defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had purchased a Kirloskar tractor and it is also admitted that the same is still with them. The plaintiff deposes that after three months of the sale, Shri Mehar Singh had purchased another tractor in the name of his son Shri Nafe Singh, that it was 1969 model Hindustan- 50 and its number was GJK 3416, that in December, 1974 that tractor was got registered in Delhi in the name of Shri Nafe Singh s/o Shri Mehar Singh, that it then bore No. DHG 9923, that in 1975 that tractor was sold away and that after the sale of second tractor, another Kirloskar tractor was purchased by Shri Mehar Singh. No challenge is made to this part of the statement in the cross-examination of the plaintiff. Shri Mehar Singh in his cross-examination admits that it is correct that his son Shri Nafe Singh purchased one tractor but he is silent in his examination-in-chief and in the cross- examination to the purchase of the second tractor. Shri Zile Singh does not speak of the purchase of any tractor in his examination- in-chief but in the cross-examination he says that tractor No. GJK 3416 was purchased in 1974 and after a period of six months it was sold and another tractor was purchased. Shri Nafe Singh as DW 7 again says that in April 1974 one tractor Hindustan-50 GJK 3416 was purchased by him, that the same was sold and another Kirloskar tractor was purchased by them after the sale of tractor GJK 3416. He denied the suggestion that tractor GJK 3416 was purchased after September 1974. Though the defendants had denied the purchase of tractor No. GJK 3416 in the written statement, yet they had to admit in their depositions before the Court about the purchase of this tractor but DW 7 gave the different date of purchase as April 1974 and not after 2nd Sept. , 1974. The version of the plaintiff is more reliable that with the sale consideration of the tractor in dispute, the defendants purchased another tractor GJK 3416 and thereafter after its sale purchased another tractor. , 1974. The version of the plaintiff is more reliable that with the sale consideration of the tractor in dispute, the defendants purchased another tractor GJK 3416 and thereafter after its sale purchased another tractor. The plaintiff s stand is that the defendants are not so big zamindars that they may require two tractors. No evidence as to the extent of holding has been led by the defendants as to the justification to maintain more than one tractor. ( 11 ) NO other point is urged at the Bar. The conclusion from the above discussion is irresistible that the judgment and decree of the trial Court on facts is correct and it is affirmed. The result is that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.