This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.2.1982 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Guwahati whereby the defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.9.1978 passed by the learned trial Court was allowed and the plaintiff's suit for specific performance was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff appellant had filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell the land in suit on the allegations, that the defendant No. 1 on 25.11.74 had borrowed Rs.1,000/-and mortgaged the land measuring 2 Bighas 1 Katha, 1 Lecha in Dag No 371 of K.P. Patta No.305 Village Jalkhana under Tihu Circle that some time after the defendant No. l on 21.4.75 had proposed to the plaintiff for sale of the land which had been mortgaged for Rs.3,000/-, The earlier loan of Rs. i,000/- was to be adjusted against the sale price. The defendant No. 1 had taken further sum of Rs l,000/- and agreement to sell was executed. The plaintiff thereafter had paid Rs. 400/- on 12.12.76 and Rs.300/- on 26.12.76 towards the sale price. The defend­ant No. l however in collusion with the defendant No.2 on 19.5.77 had executed sale deed of the land for Rs. 1,000/- in favour of the defendant No.2. The plaintiff thereupon filed the suit for specific performance. The defendant No. l had filed written statement in which the transaction of mortgage was admitted but the rest of the allega­tions were denied. The defendant No.2 in separate written statement had pleaded that he had taken transfer of land by sale from the defendant No. l for Rs.3,000/- and had been in its possession. It was pleaded that there was no collusion between the defendants and the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance. 3. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and by judgment and decree dated 6.9.78 held that there was an agreement to sell the land as pleaded by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had paid after the execution of the agreement Rs.700/-. The defence plea were not accepted. In the result the suit was decreed. 3. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and by judgment and decree dated 6.9.78 held that there was an agreement to sell the land as pleaded by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had paid after the execution of the agreement Rs.700/-. The defence plea were not accepted. In the result the suit was decreed. The defendant No.2 went in appeal and the learned appellate Court below by judgment impugned in this appeal held that there was the agreement as had been pleaded by the plaintiff, the submission about payment was also not accepted and in the result the judgm­ent and decree of the learned trial Court were set aside and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. 4. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has come in appeal and Shri T.S. Deka, learned counsel appearing on his behalf has submitted that the learned appellate Court below had not considered the evidence of the witnesses to the execution of the agreement to sell, Ext. 1 and had also ignored the fact that the plaintiff had obtained possession o" the land at the time the said agreement was executed. Shri Dika has further submitted that the learned appellate Court below had not taken into consideration the fact that the defendant No. l had not eve a entered the witness box and yet the learned appellate Court below considered the matter as if the defendant No. l had made the statement as witness., at the trial. Shri Deka has therefore submitted that judgment of the learned appellate Court below cannot be sustained and the plaintiff's suit was rightly decreed by the learned trial Court below whose decree should be restored. Shri Deka has also submitted that the plaintiff's prayer in the alternative for recovery of money paid by him, should have been considered. 5. Shri K. Sarma, learned counsel for the defendant No.2 (respond­ent No.l in this appeal) has submitted that the finding of fact of the learned appellate Court below that there was no agreement to sell was binding on this Court in second appeal and that the said finding recorded by the learned appellate Court below could not be considered perverse or untenable in evidence on record. And as such it was not open to this Court to question the said finding of fact in this appeal. 6. I have considered the submissions for the parties, and the judgments of the learned Courts below. And as such it was not open to this Court to question the said finding of fact in this appeal. 6. I have considered the submissions for the parties, and the judgments of the learned Courts below. 7. The learned appellate Court below has held that Ext.l deed of agreement was doubtful and it could not be relied upon to decree the suit for specific performance. This finding of fact is binding in this second appeal, unless it could be shown as vitiated by mis appreciation of evidence or was not sustainable in evidence on record. 8. The defendant No. l had not examined himself as witness at the trial, but he had in the written statement denied the execution of the agreement to sell Ext. 1. His version was that his signatures had earlier been obtained on a blank paper with revenue stamp by the plaintiff. The receipt of any money, other than Rs. 1,000;- taken as loan when mortgage was executed had been denied. The defendant No.2 the transferee for the defendant No. l had contested the suit. The plaintiff therefore had to prove by reliable evidence that the defend­ant No. 1 had executed the agreement Ext. l and his version was correct. The fact that the defendant No. 1 had not examined himself as witness at the trial, by itself therefore could not lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff's version was correct or that the evidence in its support was reliable. 9. The plaintiff had examined himself as PW 1 and had testified in support of his case. Besides two other witnesses on execution of Ext. 1 had been examined and one more witness was examined for possession of the land. Ext. 1 said to have been executed by the defendant No. 1 however has intrinsic feature, which as circum­stance clearly established the version of the defendant No. 1 that atleast his signature on the stamp in Ext. 1 had been on the paper, from before when it was written. This feature is 'so obvious that it does not require any other evidence to support the conclusion, because the document had been written above, on the side and below the said signature. 1 had been on the paper, from before when it was written. This feature is 'so obvious that it does not require any other evidence to support the conclusion, because the document had been written above, on the side and below the said signature. While it is true that sometimes people affix signature on top, side or bottom of the document, as they may please or as may be the practice but not in the manner the signature exist on Ext. 1 which leaves no doubt that the signature on the stamp on Ext. 1 was on the paper before it was written. This circumstance by itself besides other evidence had also led the learned appellate Court below to take the view that Ext. 1 was not reliable. It may be noted that PW 2 the scribe of the document had also stated that he could not say if any other person was present at the time the document was written by him. The learned appellate Court below has therefore concluded that the defendant No. 1 was not present at the time the document was written. Besides PW 2 also stated that at the time there was no money transaction which obviously therefore belied the plaintiff's version that Rs. 1,000/-had been paid at the time the document had been executed and this fact also was taken into consideration by the learned appellate Court below in arriving at the conclusion that Ext. 1 was not reliable. 10. Shri T. S. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that just because there were some differences about who was present and who was not present the evidence of the scribe could not be disbelieve for he had made the statement in examination in chief but in cross-examination had made the statement on which the learned appellate Court below placed unnecessary emphasis to disbelieve the witness. 1 have found it difficult to accept the contention for the appellant, because in this case in view of the defence version the evidence of the scribe was important, more so, considering the circumstance that there was signature of the defendant No. 1 on the revenue stamp on the paper even before it was written. 1 have found it difficult to accept the contention for the appellant, because in this case in view of the defence version the evidence of the scribe was important, more so, considering the circumstance that there was signature of the defendant No. 1 on the revenue stamp on the paper even before it was written. The statement of the scribe that he could not say if any one else was present was of considerable importance and was clearly consistent with the defence version and accordingly the appellate Court below has not committed any error in the appreciation of his (scribe's) evidence. The statement of a witness made in cross-examination for obvious reasons has to be given more importance and preferred to the statement made in examination in chief. The entire purpose of cross-examination is to test the veracity of the statement made in examination in chief and it is only when the statement made in examination in chief stands unshaken in cross-examination that it could be accepted. The statement made by a witness in examination in chief if shaken or shown to be inconsistent with that in cross-examination cannot be accepted. The statement as it emerges after cross examination may then be relied upon. I, therefore think that the learned appellate Court below had not committed any error in the appreciation of evidence of PW 2, the scribe. 11. Shri T. S. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the view taken in regard to the signature of the defendant No. 1 on the revenue stamp cannot be applicable to his signature at the bottom of the text of the document and accordingly there was no reason to disbelieve the plaintiff's evidence in regard to execution of the document. The plaintiff's witnesses have not testified, on that basis that while on the revenue stamp Ext. 1 the signatures Ext. 1 (i) were in existence from before the signature Ext. 1 (2) at the bottom was affixed at the time of the execution. Besides once the fact that signatures Ext 1 (1) were already there was shown to be correct as indeed it was, by the intrinsic feature already referred earlier the plaintiff's case in regard to execution of the document could not be accepted as reliable. 12. 1 (2) at the bottom was affixed at the time of the execution. Besides once the fact that signatures Ext 1 (1) were already there was shown to be correct as indeed it was, by the intrinsic feature already referred earlier the plaintiff's case in regard to execution of the document could not be accepted as reliable. 12. Shri T. S. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence of the other witnesses had not been considered by the learned appellate Court below. The evidence of the other witnesses once the plaintiff's version of execution of document was found unreliable was not material, because in the nature of the case, the evidence of the other two witnesses could not make any difference to the plaintiff's case. 13. Shri Deka, learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the plaintiff had obtained possession of the land at the time Ext. 1 had been executed and this fact had not been considered. As said before once the plaintiff's version of execution of Ext. 1 was not acceptable, the further submission on its basis about possession having been obtained also could not be accepted. 14. As regards the submission for plaintiff's alternative relief for recovery of money Rs. l,000/-at the time of execution of Ext. 1, Rs. 400/-and Rs. 300/-subsequenUy was concerned, I think it could not be accepted for the reason, that the plaintiff version of Ext. 1 was not acceptable and hence the version of Rs. 1,000/- paid and of subsequent payment for which there was only the plaintiff's oral evidence could not be accepted. 15. Whatever be the plaintiff's right against the defendant No.l on the basis of the mortgage Ext. 6 executed by him in favour of the plaintiff when he had borrowed Rs.1,003/ no relief as prayed could be granted. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned appellate Court below had on proper appreciation of evidence recorded the findings and the same cannot be reopened in this appeal. 17. This appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs