Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 5th May, 1971 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Purnea in Title Suit No. 36 of 1967. 2. A suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 3rd March, 1967 was preferred by plaintiff-appellant with respect to lands and the house thereon described at Schedule-A to the plaint. The alternative relief for recovery of earnest money amounting to Rs. 2,500.00 was also sought for. 3. Admittedly, the suit land and house thereon belonged to defendants-Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and his brother Megh Raj Agarwal, having an area of 0.16 decimal appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 6548 of Khata No. 2453. The plaintiff-appellant alleged that on negotiation, the land-holders Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Megh Raj Agarwal entered into an agreement on 2nd March, 1967 for sale of suit property with the plaintiff, which was registered on 3rd March, 1967 on receipt of a sum of Rs. 2,500.00 as earnest money. It was agreed between the parties that on payment of balance consideration amount of Rs. 16,000.00 , the vendors. Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal would execute the sale-deed for the suit properties within a month from the date of receipt of balance amount. Further case of the plaintiff-appellant was that he made several demands from Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal to execute the sale-deed, but they did not pay any heed to the request so made and ultimately, the plaintiff came to know that the vendors-Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal executed a registered sale-deed with respect to the suit property in favour of Defendant No. 3, Pirthichand Bhagat on 30th March, 1967. The plaintiff-appellant pleaded that on enquiry he learnt that the said sale deed dated 30th March, 1969 executed by vendors-Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal, was a collusive document and was made without any consideration. The reference of one Zar-e-beyana deed dated 12th February, 1967 mentioned in the sale-deed was also collusive, ante-dated and without consideration. In fact, no agreement for sale was made between the parties till 3rd March, 1967, the date on negotiation, vendors-Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal made agreement for sale of suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The reference of one Zar-e-beyana deed dated 12th February, 1967 mentioned in the sale-deed was also collusive, ante-dated and without consideration. In fact, no agreement for sale was made between the parties till 3rd March, 1967, the date on negotiation, vendors-Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal made agreement for sale of suit property in favour of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the defendants were bound to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, as he was always ready to perform his part of contract and was still ready for the same. 4. In the suit, while Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal was impleaded as Defendant No. 1, Meghraj Agarwal was impleaded as Defendant No. 2. Meghraj Agarwal died during the pendency of the suit and his name was expunged. Defendant No. 1, Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal inspite of notice did not appear to contest the suit but the purchaser Defendant No. 3 (Original Respondent No. 2 herein, now deceased and substituted by his heirs) appeared and contested the suit. 5. According to the contesting Defendant No. 3, he negotiated with Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal, when they reached an agreement executed on 12th February, 1967 for sale of suit property for consideration of Rs. 17,000. At the time of execution of deed of agreement on 12th February, 1967, earnest money of Rs. 2,000.00 was paid to vendors-Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal and on receipt of balance consideration amount of Rs. 15,000, sale-deed executed and registered on 30th March, 1967 in his favour. He further pleaded that the lease agreement dated 3rd March, 1967 treated to be executed by Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal in favour of the plaintiff-appellant was not genuine being not accepted by vendors. It was made without any consideration and the Defendant No. 3 had no knowledge with respect to such deed of agreement dated 3rd March, 1967, said to have been executed in favour of the plaintiff. Such deed of agreement dated 3rd March, 1967 cannot be enforced against the Defendant No. 3. Further, according to the Defendant No. 3, the suit was barred under the provision of Secs. 20 and 34 of Specific Relief Act. Such deed of agreement dated 3rd March, 1967 cannot be enforced against the Defendant No. 3. Further, according to the Defendant No. 3, the suit was barred under the provision of Secs. 20 and 34 of Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff having no cause of action, the suit was not maintainable and that the defendant was already in possession over the suit property, as he was the tenant of vendors-Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal since before the purchase of the suit property. General pleading that the suit was barred by limitation, estoppel, waiver etc. was also made by Defendant No. 3. 6. The Court below on hearing the parties framed the following 9 (nine) issues: (1) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? (2) Whether the plaintiff has got cause of action for the suit? (3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation, estoppel, waiver and admission? (4) Whether the suit is hit by Secs. 34 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act? (5) Whether Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal entered into a contract for sale of suit properties for a consideration of Rs. 18,500 to the plaintiff and whether they executed a registered Zar-e-beyanama deed on 3.3.1967, in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of Rs. 2,500? (6) Whether Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal had executed an agreement for sale of the suit properties in favour of defendant No. 3 on 12.2.1967? (7) Whether the defendant No. 3, purchased the suit property by virtue of sale-deed dated 30.3.1967, for consideration and without notice of the alleged contract for the sale-deed dated 3.3.1967? (8) Can the defendants be compelled to specifically perform the contract for sale dated 3.3.1967? (9) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 7. Out of the aforesaid issues, while Issue Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were not pressed, by impugned judgment, the Court below decided Issue Nos. 2 and 9 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and held that the plaintiff has got no cause of action except for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,500.00 i.e. earnest money from Defendant No. 1 and no other relief. Issue Nos. 5 to 8 were taken up together for convenience and decided the same against the plaintiff-appellant. 8. 2 and 9 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and held that the plaintiff has got no cause of action except for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,500.00 i.e. earnest money from Defendant No. 1 and no other relief. Issue Nos. 5 to 8 were taken up together for convenience and decided the same against the plaintiff-appellant. 8. Before this Court, the Counsel for the appellant mainly pressed Issue No. 6 and submitted that if this Court answers this issue in affirmative that the agreement for sale was reached between the vendors and Defendant No. 3 on 12th February, 1967 then it will go against the plaintiff-appellant. On the other hand, if the issue is answered in negative and this Court holds that no such agreement for sale was reached between the vendors-Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal in favour of Defendant No. 3 on 12th February, 1967 then the rest of the issues i.e. Issue Nos. 5, 7 and 8 will also go in favour of plaintiff-appellant. According to him, the so called agreement for sale-deed dated 12th February, 1967 in favour of Defendant No. 3 (Exts. D) was collusive, antedated, sham and was executed after 3rd March, 1967 to defeat the agreement for sale which was made by vendors-Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal in favour of plaintiff-appellant. The oral evidence of D.W.3, Budhmal was placed to show that the said defence witness while in examination stated that the agreement for sale was made in his presence by vendors-Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal in favour of Defendant No. 3, he did not reveal the date on which such agreement for sale was made. On the other hand, in cross-examination, he stated that he came to know that Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal will sell the suit property for the first time in the month of Fagun. It was submitted that the month of Fagun starts from the middle of English calendar month of March and from the statement of D.W. 3, it should be construed that the agreement for sale was made in favour of Defendant No. 3, for the first time, in the middle of March, 1967, i.e. after registered agreement for sale was made in favour of plaintiff-appellant on 3rd March, 1967, vide Exts. J. 9. Reliance was placed on Exts. J. 9. Reliance was placed on Exts. F and F-1 relating to endorsement made on the stamp paper and entry made in the stock Register. According to him, from Ext. G read with Ext. 7 dated 9th February, 1967 made in the Stock Register, it will clear that there was a doubt in actual purchase of stamp papers by Meghraj Agarwal and Ext. 6-B containing such entries dated 10th February, 1967 made in the sale Register. 10. The Counsel also placed reliance on Paragraph No. 10, at Page-14 of the impugned judgment, where the Court below observed that a suspicion arises that the Stamp Vendor might have sold one stamp worth Rs. 2.00 and another stamp worth 0.25 p., out of the stamp which he had appropriated to himself on 10th February, 1967 to Meghraj Agarwal after 3rd March, 1967. 11. The submission of the Counsel was that once such doubt was raised and accepted by the trial Court, benefit of such doubt and suspicion should go in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and the issue should have been decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellant giving a specific finding that no such agreement for sale was made prior to 3rd March, 1967. 12. I am not inclined to accept the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant on mere doubt and suspicion. In a suit, when a question of fact is to be determined it must be based on positive evidence. No such conclusion can be arrived relating to a fact on mere suspicion whatever strong it may be. 13. So far as the fact as to whether the agreement for sale was reached between Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal in favour of Defendant No. 3 on 12th February, 1967 is concerned, the Court below has taken into note the statements of various witnesses including the statements of D.W. 4, Mahendra Nath Misser and D.W. 6, Dharam Chand Bhagat, who made specific statement that Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal executed the deed of agreement in favour of Defendant No. 3, in their presence and they put their signatures on such deed of agreement dated 12th February, 1967 as witnesses. Prior to 5-6 days, negotiation was made by Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal with Defendant No. 3 for sale of the disputed property at the Darwaja of D.W. 6 and was finalised for a consideration of Rs. 17,000. Prior to 5-6 days, negotiation was made by Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal with Defendant No. 3 for sale of the disputed property at the Darwaja of D.W. 6 and was finalised for a consideration of Rs. 17,000. Stamp papers were purchased on 10th February, 1967; one for Rs. 2 and another for 0.25 p. and entries were made to that effect in the Sale Register, were proved on the basis of records, vide Exts. G, F and F-l and 7. Such evidences being on record including statement of witnesses and Exhibits, the doubt cannot prevail over evidences to give an answer in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. 14. Apart from the aforesaid fact, I find that the Court below rightly held that the suit was premature, having filed on 1st April, 1967, as the agreement was reached between Bisheshwar Lal Agarwal and Meghraj Agarwal with the plaintiff-appellant on 3rd March, 1967 in terms of which cause of action could have started after 2nd April, 1967. 15. This apart, the Counsel for the Defendant No. 3 (Original Respondent No. 2 herein) has pointed out that now more than 30 (thirty) years have passed after the sale was made in favour of Defendant No. 3 and so this Court should not interfere with the matter. There being discretionary jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Supreme Court . 16. On the facts and circumstances, I also accept the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of Defendant No. 3. 17. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court are confirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be. no order, as to costs.