Judgment Khem Chand Sharma, J.-This appeal under Section 96, CPC arises out of the Judgment and decree dated 21.02.1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the plaintiffs suit for specific performance. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants in respect of a contract entered into between the parties by way of a written agreement to sell dated 011.1973 by which one Manas Ghisa Gujar agreed to sell his share of land for a consideration of Rs. 12000/-. The trial Court concluded that the plaintiff has not been able to prove execution of agreement to sell by adducing evidence. Therefore, the only question that requires to be adjudicated upon is whether Mana had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff ? 3. The plaintiff in support of his case has examined himself as PW1 and has also examined Prakash Chand as PW. 2 who is said to be the scribe of agreement and one Bhanwar Lal as PW. 3. The agreement is written on a pie paper which contains a ticket on the middle of it. The plaintiff has stated that the agreement was written by Prakash Chand PW-2 at the instance of Mana and Mana had put his thumb impression. On he day of execution of agreement, he had paid a sum of Rs. 10000/-in cash to Mana and rest of the amount had to be paid at the time of registry. In cross-examination, the plaintiff has stated that he had given money on credit to Mst. Chandani w/o Mana after the agreement was written. As regards revenue ticket of 25 paisa, the plaintiff has stated that the scribe has affixed the ticket at the centre while writing the document. The agreement was read over to Mana and, thereafter, he put his thumb impression. He then stated that Prakash Chand Surana had affixed the ticket at Mark A after writing up to portion marked Y. The plaintiff stated that he himself had given the stamp to Prakash Surana. PW. 2 Prakash Chand, scribe has deposed that he had written the agreement at the instance of Mana. He stated that he is aware of the fact that either one puts its signature or thumb impression on the ticket itself and that ticket is affixed only after the document is completely written. PW. 2 Prakash Chand, scribe has deposed that he had written the agreement at the instance of Mana. He stated that he is aware of the fact that either one puts its signature or thumb impression on the ticket itself and that ticket is affixed only after the document is completely written. The witness was not aware as to how the ticket was affixed at the center of the agreement. The witness then specifically stated that the portion marked A where the ticket was affixed, was not in fact affixed and therefore, he did not ask Mana to put his thumb impression. He then stated that he was seeing the stamp for the first time in the Court itself and that he was not aware as to who affixed the said stamp. He then stated in very specific manner “WAH KAGAJ SIS PER BINA TICKET THA TATHA US PER MANA KE HASTAKSHAR KARAYE THE WAH DASTAVEG AAJ ADALAT ME MOJOOD NAHI HAI. Meaning thereby that the document produced in the Court was not that document which was written by him. In other words, some other document was executed on which there was no ticket. 4. Poosa Ram was the attesting witnesses who has not been examined in evidence. However his son Bhanwar Lal has been examined as PW-3 to identify the signature and writing of his father Poosa Ram. That apart Mst. Chandani wife of executant who has been examined as DW. 1 has denied to have any knowledge about the execution of any such agreement. 5. From that has been discussed above, it must be concluded that the trial Court has rightly come to a finding that plaintiff has not been able to prove the execution of agreement to sell, which gave rise to filing of the suit. Thus the Judgment of the trial Court being based on proper appreciation of evidence, both ocular and documentary, calls for no interference. Resultantly, this appeal has no merit and it is dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs.