Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-Hansraj the plaintiff-appellant herein was successful in seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 27.02.1982 with respect to a plot of land bearing No. A-16, situated in Janta Colony, Jaipur City. Suit filed against Govind Narain-the defendant-respondent herein, was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide Judgment and decree dated 10.03.1997. Hansraj, however, was unable to defend the Judgment and decree recorded by the trial Judge as the same was set-aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court in an appeal preferred by Govind Narain. The learned Single Judge vide order dated August 2, 1999 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. It is against this order of the learned Single Judge that the present DB Civil Special Appeal No. 71/1999 has been filed under Ordinance 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. 2. Brief facts culminating into filing of the present appeal reveal that the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter to be referred as the plaintiff ) filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale Exhibit-1, said to have been executed between him and defendant on 27.02.1982 with regard to a built up plot bearing No. A-16, situated in Janta Colony, Jaipur City, The burden of plaint was that the defendant, had agreed to sell the built-up plot to him for a sale consideration of Rs. 2 lacs, for which he had given him an advance payment of Rs. 25,000/-at the time of execution of sale agreement itself . The defendant, as per terms of agreement was required to obtain no objection certification from the Income Tax Department within two months of its execution of also no dues certificate for repayment of loan of Rs. 15,000/-to the Collector, Jaipur and thereafter to furnish receipts in lieu thereof before execution of a sale deed in performance of sale deed. The defendant wriggled out of the contract and thus did not perform his part of obligations and a notice dated 20.09.1982 was served upon him through an advocate which was not favorably responded to by the defendant, thus constraining him to file a suit for specific performance. .3. The cause of the plaintiff was hotly contested by the defendant, who denied having executed any agreement. It was inter-alia pleaded by him that the agreement in question was forged and prepared on blank papers. .3. The cause of the plaintiff was hotly contested by the defendant, who denied having executed any agreement. It was inter-alia pleaded by him that the agreement in question was forged and prepared on blank papers. He was in debts as a results of loan lent from various money lenders. Plaintiff himself was a money lender/broker through whom he was lent money. He was however, not in a position to clear those debts forthwith at the demand of such money lenders/brokers like the plaintiff , he was pressurized by them to settle his debts and the agreement of sale was not voluntarily executed by him. He was under the bona fide belief that the property in dispute shall be disposed of for an adequate consideration of Rs. 7 lacs so as to enable the appellants to clear of his debts and it is on that understanding only that he had signed the agreement but same were obtained on the blank papers. He further pleaded that in the agreement of appointing Arbitrators, one of the important conditions was that the Arbitrators would have powers to examine account books and settle outstanding debts by selling suit plot but with the consent of the defendant as to the sale consideration thereof and further that no dispute in future would be raised by any of the creditors. The plaintiff was the key person in getting the arbitration agreement executed. He forced the defendant to sign on blank stamp papers so that he may not refuse later on from selling the suit plot. He further pleaded that no other agreement except arbitration agreement was entered into between him and others and he had never agreed to sell the suit land for Rs. 2 lacs. He also pleaded that infact the market value of the suit plot was not below Rs. 7 lacs and he also made an offer for a sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 6.5 lacs to the Arbitrators but no heed was given to him nor they took any step to examine account books so as to settle disputes with various money lenders and the brokers. He had received an offer of Rs. 6 lacs to Rs. 6.5 lacs but he was even expecting higher price so as to enable him to meet the demands of creditors. He had received an offer of Rs. 6 lacs to Rs. 6.5 lacs but he was even expecting higher price so as to enable him to meet the demands of creditors. From the contents and attending circumstances of document Exhibit-1, he further averred that the same was forged and concocted. This pleading was sought to be inferred from number of .circumstances mentioned in the written statement. 4. The rival contentions of the respective parties gave rise to 16 issues that were framed by the trial Judge. 5. The parties led evidence oral and documentary in support of their pleadings. The learned trial Judge, as mentioned above, vide order dated 10.03.1997decreed the suit of plaintiff , thus constraining the defendant to file SB Civil First Appeal No. 120/1997, with the result as already indicated above. .6. Before we might notice the contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff in support of the appeal it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant observations made by the learned Single Judge on the basis of which the Judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court has been reversed:- .“Mandate of legislature as regards Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, on which Shri Ranjan has placed reliance heavily, is to be guided by sound judicial principles before exercising judicial discretion to decree specific performance. It is not binding on the Court to decree specific performance in every case rather facts and circumstances on each case weighed with the evidence on record have to be appreciated and in fact there is no statutory duty to decree specific performance in every case. The present case is a blatant example of conduct of the plaintiff , which itself is heavily shrouded with suspicion and mystery coupled with the circumstances in which the alleged agreement to sale dated 27.02.1982 (Exhibit-1) was executed........... “From a perusal of statement of plaintiff (PW. 1) it is evident that he had not come with clean hands before the Court and the entire transaction of sale borne out from examination-in-chief of the plaintiff with regard to the objection raised in written statement as to the signatures on blank papers having been obtained at the instance and assurance of the Arbitrator for execution of the arbitration agreement for disposal of the suit property by them. The learned trial Court has gravely erred in not having examined statement of the defendant in its true perspective, who had in his cross-examination clearly denied that an agreement (Exhibit-1) was ever entered into for the sale of property in suit for rupees two lacs only as against which he had received Rs. 25,000/-from the plaintiff as earnest money and which admittedly could fetch much higher consideration as per the prevailing prices of similarly constructed properties having regard to the nature of construction and the locality in which it was situated. The plaintiff has failed to prove as to what were those sparing reasons for which the defendant would have agreed to sell the suit house at a lesser price of rupees two lacs much below the market value of Rs. Seven lacs as prevalent at the relevant time. Nobody by any stretch of imagination would like to sell his property at a throw away price and for this no evidence has been led by the plaintiff to rebut presumption. It fact looking to the conduct of the plaintiff in surreptitious manner in which the document (Exhibit-1) was executed as on 27.02.1982 between the parties, is clearly suggestive of the fact after careful perusal of recitals of the agreement (Exhibit-1) that the alleged sale consideration of Rs. Two lacs for which the parties had allegedly agreed, is shrouded with mystery and rather in my considered view, it casts heavy suspicion on the conduct of the plaintiff as to the defendant having agreed to sell the suit house at much lesser price than the market value. This fact is borne out from the covenant pertaining to earnest money since Rs. 25,000/-payment of which has been vehemently disputed by the defendant in as much as admittedly the onus to prove this issue of having advanced this amount as against sale consideration of Rs. Two lacs was heavily on the plaintiff and since this onus having not been satisfactorily discharged by leading cogent evidence before the learned trial Court, where was the occasion for the plaintiff to have agreed to pay the defendant an amount of Rs. 1.75 lacs at the time of execution of registered sale deeds remains unexplained on the record.” 7. Two lacs was heavily on the plaintiff and since this onus having not been satisfactorily discharged by leading cogent evidence before the learned trial Court, where was the occasion for the plaintiff to have agreed to pay the defendant an amount of Rs. 1.75 lacs at the time of execution of registered sale deeds remains unexplained on the record.” 7. While dealing with regard to the price of the property in dispute at the relevant time the learned Single Judge observed that the defendant had led reliable and cogent evidence on record by proving the fact that the market value of similarly constructed properties was much higher i.e., to the tune of Rs. 7 lacs or even more and thus it was not possible that the defendant might have agreed to dispose of the suit property at much lesser price of Rs. 2 lacs. The learned Single Judge also commented upon the conduct of the plaintiff , who was admittedly property broker and money lender. The learned Single Judge also gave in details various circumstances like the defendant residing in the very house that was subject matter of sale, the contract in question being executed in a surreptitious manner, there being no occasion for the defendant to have sold the only house where he was residing, the falsity of the plea taken by the plaintiff that the agreement of sale was executed in duplicate and non-examination of arbitrators to support the case of the plaintiff and further observed as follows:- “From the evidence on record, it stands proved that the plaintiff was a money lending broker who used to provide finance to defendant firm from R.U. Oswal and Others. The plaintiff failed to produce accounts books in support of his case. The agreement (Exhibit A-1) clearly shows that the defendant was being forced to sell his house to satisfy the dues of various money lenders and since the plaintiff was broker, he played active role alongwith R.U. Oswal and Krishan Kumar to grab, which stand proved on record. Further the plaintiff stated that he had no concern with the creditors of the defendant, which is contrary to Exhibit A-1, which was executed to settle the dues of the creditors and the plaintiff himself was one of the Panchas and he was required to clear all the accounts of the defendant by selling the suit property. Further the plaintiff stated that he had no concern with the creditors of the defendant, which is contrary to Exhibit A-1, which was executed to settle the dues of the creditors and the plaintiff himself was one of the Panchas and he was required to clear all the accounts of the defendant by selling the suit property. Thus the plaintiff made a false statements so as to set up a false plea of giving Rs. 25,000/-as earnest money in pursuance of his agreement (Exhibit-1) to sale. From a perusal of copy of notary public register (Exhibit-7) itself apparent that the entry of Rs. 25,000/-is over lapping on two lacs and this entry was inserted later on. Even this plea is also false because notary public in his cross-examination specifically stated that no amount was ever paid in his presence, then how could he make such an entry in the register is also beyond imagination.” 8. The learned Single Judge then relied upon the judicial precedents cited by learned Counsel representing the defendant in (1) Manickathammal vs. Nallasani (AIR 1977 Madras 83), (2) K. Venkatasubbaya vs. K. Ventaswarlu, AIR 1971 AP 279 , (3) Gopal Krishanji Vs. Mohd. Haji Lat, AIR 1968 SC 1413 , (4) Sunil Chandra vs. Hemendra Kr. Deb, AIR 1985 Cal. 233 , (5) Rabindra Nath Sahu vs. Maya Devi, AIR 1991 Patna 192, (6) P.R. Deb & Associates vs. Sunanda Roy, AIR 1996 SC 1504 , (7) P.V. Josephs son Mathew vs. N. Kuruvlas son and (8) S. Ranga Raju Maidu vs. S. Thiruya Rakkarasu, 1995 (Supp) (2) SCC 680, in support of the plea raised by him that it was not incumbent upon the Courts in every case where even agreement of sale might have been proved to grant decree of specific performance in view of the provisions contained in Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1947. 9. The learned Single Judge in an elaborate Judgment running into about 40 pages threadbare discussed every conceiveable aspect of the case and in ultimate analysis, as mentioned above, dismissed the suit. 10. The Counsel for the appellant at the very outset contends that in execution of the decree passed by the trial Court the plaintiff has already deposited the sale consideration and even sale deed has been executed and registered. 10. The Counsel for the appellant at the very outset contends that in execution of the decree passed by the trial Court the plaintiff has already deposited the sale consideration and even sale deed has been executed and registered. He argues that the decree passed by the trial Court has since been executed and on that count alone the present appeal deserves to succeed. This contention of the learned Counsel has to be summarily rejected. The appeal is always in continuation of the suit. If the Appellate Court might reverse the Judgment passed by the trial Court, all acts done in furtherance of the execution of the decree passed by the trial Court have to be reversed. That being so, if the plaintiff had even succeeded in obtaining the possession of the house in dispute, he had to restore the same to the defendant as would be also made out from the provisions contained in section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. The learned Counsel then contends that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the property in dispute was of the value of Rs. 7 lacs or more is based upon no evidence whatsoever and in any case inadequacy of sale consideration can be no ground to refuse specific performance of the agreement to sale. With a view to substantiate the contention that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge with regard to the value of the property in dispute is incorrect, the Counsel refers to house tax receipt said to have been submitted by the defendant himself according to which the value of the property was Rs. 7 lacs in the year 1982. He also refers to two sale deeds executed in the same period in the same locality which had not been exhibited but are on record according to which the price of Rs. 2 lacs was much higher at the relevant time from the market rate. He also refers to some properties having been sold by the plaintiff himself situated in Johari Bazar, Jaipur for a consideration of Rs. 71,000/-and an industrial plot situated at Vishavkarma Industrial Area, Jaipur measuring about 2000 sq. meters. 12. We find no merit whatsoever in the contentions of the learned Counsel as noted above. He also refers to some properties having been sold by the plaintiff himself situated in Johari Bazar, Jaipur for a consideration of Rs. 71,000/-and an industrial plot situated at Vishavkarma Industrial Area, Jaipur measuring about 2000 sq. meters. 12. We find no merit whatsoever in the contentions of the learned Counsel as noted above. The Counsel has himself admitted that the sale-deeds placed on records had not been proved as vendor or vendee of these sale deeds were not examined as witnesses. In our considered view no reliance could at all be placed upon the documents which were not proved. In so far as, house tax receipt is concerned, suffice it to mention that the same cannot be said to be representing the market value of the property. It is too well known that with a view to pay lesser tax people endeavor to show lesser value of their property. The land and building tax assessment, once again, Counsel admits, was sought to be proved by a photo stat copy and the same as such was not proved in the manner prescribed for proving a document. The sale of other properties of the plaintiff located in different areas cannot possibly be compared with the property in dispute. The plot in dispute consists of a built house having two stories. What was the nature of the property situated at Jawahar Nagar or located in the Industrial Area and as to whether there was any construction thereon is not known. Learned Counsel has also criticized the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge with regard to non-payment of Rs. 25,000/-as an advance money to the defendant. He contends that this finding is contrary to record and there is admission of defendant himself in the agreement with regard to receipt of Rs. 25,000/-. Once, defendant had admitted his signatures on the agreement Exhibit-1, receipt of payment of Rs. 25,000/-stood automatically proved. We find no merit in this contention of the learned Counsel as well. An agreement of sale is not a negotiable instrument, admission of which by signatures of the executant may presume payment as well or may enjoin the defendant to prove that the payment was not made. In an agreement of sale the plaintiff was bound to prove not only execution thereof but payment of advance money as well. 13. An agreement of sale is not a negotiable instrument, admission of which by signatures of the executant may presume payment as well or may enjoin the defendant to prove that the payment was not made. In an agreement of sale the plaintiff was bound to prove not only execution thereof but payment of advance money as well. 13. The last contention of the learned Counsel that there was no justification for the learned Single Judge to hold that Exhibit-7 was interpolated, as no question with regard thereto was put to PW. 3 Kishanlal Verma is also bereft of any merit. The circumstances as given by the learned Single Judge in holding Exhibit-7 to be interpolated have not been even touched by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 14. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, in our considered view the learned Single Judge correctly appreciated the evidence led by the parties and reached to a right and just conclusion. We find no infirmity or illegality in the Judgment recorded by the learned Single Judge even with regard to applying Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and the judicial precedents mentioned above in refusing to grant decree for specific performance to the plaintiff . The appeal is totally devoid of any merit and the same is thus dismissed. In view of fluctuating fate of the parties, however, we order that they would bear their own costs.