Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.7.86 passed by 3rd. Additional Subordinate Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Title Appeal No. 31/82 affirming the judgment of the trial court dated 31.5.82 passed in 227/66 title suit no.96/79 2. The plaintiffs of the suit are the appellants here. The brief facts of the plaintiffs case in the lower court were that one Shital Singh, defendant no. 1 of the suit (since deceased and substituted by his heirs) had executed a sale-deed dated 27.8.66 in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff-appellants. However, the sale- deed in its recitals stated that consideration money was paid. However, consideration money was not paid as a matter of fact and, therefore, the plaintiff-appellants went to the house of Shital Singh on the next date of the execution of the sale-deed in their favour and offered the consideration money. But, however, Shital Singh refused to hand over the equivalent on the pretext that the same was not available and missing somewhere. The plaintiffs approached Shital Singh several times thereafter, but the latter continued to evade accepting the consideration money and handing over the equivalent. In the meantime, Shital Singh executed a deed of cancellation on 6.9.66 relating to the sale- deed of the plaintiffs. On 3.9.66 Shital Singh executed sale-deed of the plaintiffs. On 3.9.66 Shital Singh executed sale-deed in favour of defendant 2nd set (contesting defendants). The plaintiffs served a law- yers notice dated 10.9.66 upon Shital Singh and thereafter filed the suit seeking declaration of their title on the basis of the sale-deed dated 27.8.66 and they also sought that Shital Singh and defendants be directed to hand over the original sale- deed to the plaintiffs. 3. The contesting defendant took the plea that there was a prior agreement of sale in their favour by Shital Singh before the alleged execution of sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. So, the plaintiffs were aware of this agreement for sale. The sale- deed of the plaintiffs was invalid for want of payment of consideration money and the sale-deed in favour of the defendants was valid and, hence, the suit was sought to be dismissed. 4. The trial court and the appellate court both held that for want of payment of consideration money, the plaintiffs sale- deed was invalid and they acquired no title over the suit land. 4. The trial court and the appellate court both held that for want of payment of consideration money, the plaintiffs sale- deed was invalid and they acquired no title over the suit land. The relief relating to the specific performance of contract was also irrelevant and accordingly decided the point. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by both the courts. 5. Before me, it was submitted that there was compromise petition under the signature of Shital Singh and some other defendants and besides the same, the plaintiffs had approached Shital Singh to accept the consideration money and, so, there was a clear intention on the part of the plaintiffs to tender the consideration money. Hence, their sale-deed was not invalid. In this connection, it is apparent that the plaintiff himself admitted that no consideration money was paid and, hence, the sale-deed of the plaintiffs was invalid for want of consideration. Now, the question is whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs had the real intention to offer the consideration money to Shital Singh and whether they had, of course, tendered this consideration money, in this connection, both the lower courts examined the evidence of some witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs in support of the tender of consideration money and the evidence of the plaintiffs as. P.W. 48 was also considered and both the courts below held that there was no sufficient and reliable evidence that the plaintiff had offered consideration money to Shital Singh. In this connection, the circumstance that the plaintiff approached Shital Singh on the very next day of the execution of the sale-deed for tendering the consideration money was a doubtful circumstance because of the statement of the plaintiff as P.W. 48 that there was an agreement that the plaintiff shall pay consideration money when he will arrange for the same. The courts below, therefore, suspected the plea of the plaintiff that he went to offer the consideration money to Shital Singh on the next day of the execution of the sale-deed itself. So far the compromise petition is concerned, it was held by the courts below that there were certain forgeries regarding the signatures of some of the defendants and, moreover, the compromise petition was not signed by all the defendants. There were certain interpolations and over-writing on certain dates of the compromise petition. So, the compromise petition was rejected by the courts below. There were certain interpolations and over-writing on certain dates of the compromise petition. So, the compromise petition was rejected by the courts below. In that view of the matter also, the plea of the plaintiff that he had offered the consideration money to Shital Singh was not relied by the courts below. The compromise petition was, further disbelieved on the ground that it is not understandable as to why the plaintiff or the plaintiffs failed to secure the original sale- deed from Shital Singh in view of the comprgmise. In all circumstances, therefore, the compromise petition was viewed with suspicion. 6. In the light of the aforesaid reasonings, the two lower courts held that there was no genuine offer for consideration money by the plaintiff to Shital Singh, the vendor. Besides the same, the sale-deed was admittedly invalid on account of nonpayment of the consideration money. It was under these circumstances that the plaintiff-appellants suit was dismissed. 7. I am of the opinion that the courts below were not unjustified in dismissing the plaintiffs suit on the grounds stated by them in their judgments. 8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost of this appeal.