JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. : This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 10.5.1985 and 20.07.1985 respectively passed by learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur in T.S. No.29 of 1980. 2. The plaintiff’s case in brief was that he acquired schedule ‘A’ property through several purchase transactions and was in exclusive possession of the same for more than 17 years, during which time he raised enclosures around the suit land, raised paddy crops every year, planted fruit bearing trees, dug a tank and reared fish in the same. At the same time, he also acquired a loan of Rs.11,600/- from the Industries Department and other loans from Banks and financial institutions mortgaging the suit properties along with his other properties including the homestead. For non-repayment of the loan the Industries Depart¬ment started a Certificate Proceeding bearing No.13/73-74 and the Bank also started proceeding for execution of ex-parte money decree obtained against him. To add his misery, his elder son who was expected to take up some job and help him in repayment of loan renounced the world and became an ashramite. His younger son and daughter were ripe for marriage and their marriage had been settled. Thus, by 1978 he was in financial crisis. In order to clear up the debt amount and to meet the expenses of marriage ceremony of his son and daughter, he advertised in the newspaper offering the sale of Schedule ‘A’ properties. When the matter stood thus, defendant No.3, who was a Bench Clerk of the Certifi¬cate Officer then and was helping the plaintiff in getting ad¬journments in the certificate proceeding came with defendant-respondent No.2 who was an Officer in the Industries Department and was looking after the certificate proceeding, and approached him to sell the suit land to defendant No.1, the wife of defend¬ant No.2. After a discussion on the subject and haggling over the consideration amount the price for the said schedule ‘A’ land was settled at Rs.50,000/-. An agreement for sale was then entered into between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 wherein payment of advance of Rs.5,101/- by defendant No.2 was shown. It was understood that out of this amount plaintiff would keep a cash of Rs.101/- and the remaining Rs.5,000/- would be deposited in the certificate proceeding towards part repayment. An agreement for sale was then entered into between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 wherein payment of advance of Rs.5,101/- by defendant No.2 was shown. It was understood that out of this amount plaintiff would keep a cash of Rs.101/- and the remaining Rs.5,000/- would be deposited in the certificate proceeding towards part repayment. The plain¬tiff alleged that on 2.6.1978 he was called to the office of the Advocate Shri Kanduri Ch. Panda where the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and other persons were present and by the time of his arrival stamp paper worth Rs.3,000/- had been purchased in his name and the sale deed had been scribed. Finding that the sale considera¬tion has been noted as Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- and some mistake in the schedule of the properties, the plaintiff refused to sign the document, but was coerced by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 with a threat that unless he executes the sale deed or refunds Rs.8,101/- towards advance amount already paid and the cost of the stamp paper, they would issue a body warrant in the certificate case and get him arrested. Further case of the plain¬tiff is that after such threat he left the place and came back after sometime and after a discussion it was agreed that Rs.30,000/- would be paid as consideration and the rest amount of Rs.20,000/-, out of the total consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- would be satisfied by allowing the plaintiff to enjoy fruits of the trees standing on 20 gunths of the suit property for a period of 18 months and with such understanding he signed and executed the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar. It was further alleged that despite such agreement the defendants did not allow the plaintiff to enjoy the fruits of the trees standing on the suit land; on the contrary they initiated a proceeding under Section 144, Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur, who was also the Certificate Officer and then got him arrested by the police in a criminal case. Since the defendants took the sale deed by use of fraud and coercion and did not honour the agree¬ment regarding enjoyment of fruits by the plaintiff, the plain¬tiff filed the above said suit with a prayer for declaration that the defendants did not acquire any right, title over the suit property by virtue of the sale deed dated 2.6.1978 (Ext.1) and declaration of the plaintiff’s right, title and confirmation of his possession over the suit properties and in the alternative recovery of possession of the suit property to him. The plaintiff also claimed damages to the tune of Rs.32,500/- towards value of paddy and fruits of this suit property along with damages to a tune of Rs.1,000/- for the unauthorized occupation of the defend¬ants over the suit property. In addition to the above noted prayers permanent injunction restraining the defendants from coming upon the suit property was also sought for. 3. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit pleading inter alia that the plaintiff after undertaking the purport and import of the transaction executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 for an agreed consideration of Rs.30,000/-. It was pleaded that out of the consideration amount plaintiff received Rs.5,000/- in advance and received a further sum of Rs.5,000/- at the time of registration with a stipulation that the certificate dues amounting to Rs.20,000/- would be cleared up by defendant No.1 in Certificate Case No.13/73-74 pending against the plain¬tiff. These defendants stoutly denied that there was ever any agreement for sale of the suit land for Rs.50,000/- or that there was any agreement, that the plaintiff would enjoy the fruits of the trees standing on the suit land for a period of 18 months in lieu of Rs.20,000/- out of the consideration amount. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 also averred that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 also averred that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties. Regarding the proceeding under Section 144, Cr.P.C., it was the case of defendant Nos.1 and 2 that after executing the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 the plaintiff lost all his right, title over the suit property, but illegally he executed a deed of cancellation, forcibly cut away the paddy crops raised by the defendants Nos.1 and 2 from the said land for which they had no alternative than to file a proceeding under Section 144, Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate and an F.I.R. in the police station. In short, the plea of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was that the sale transaction was valid and genuine and that no fraud or coercion was practiced and that no term of any agreement was violated. Defendant No.3 did not contest the suit and was set ex-parte. 4. From the pleadings of the parties learned trial judge framed as many as 15 issues and accepted evidence of the parties. The plaintiff examined 10 witnesses, he himself being P.W.10, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 examined seven witnesses, D.W. 5 being defendant No.2 and D.W.7 being defendant No.1. Besides oral evidence, the parties also produced documents in support of their respective cases and those documents were marked as Ext. 1 to 26 and Exts. ‘A’ to ‘F’ respectively. On consideration of these oral and documentary evidence learned trial Court came to hold that the sale document, Ext.4, is a genuine document for due consider¬ation and that it was never obtained by practice of fraud or coercion, that there was never any agreement allowing the plain¬tiff to enjoy the fruits of the trees standing on the suit land for a period of 18 months in lieu of Rs.20,000/- out of the consider¬ation money, that the plaintiff was actually given right to enjoy the fruits on payment of Rs.1800/- to defendant No.1. He accord¬ingly, refused to grant the declaratory decree prayed for. Learned trial judge,however, held that since the plaintiff could not enjoy the fruits of the trees of the suit land, he is enti¬tled to recover damages of Rs.1,800/- only from the defendants and the defendant No.1 would clear up the balance certificate dues in the proceeding pending against the plaintiff. He accord¬ingly, refused to grant the declaratory decree prayed for. Learned trial judge,however, held that since the plaintiff could not enjoy the fruits of the trees of the suit land, he is enti¬tled to recover damages of Rs.1,800/- only from the defendants and the defendant No.1 would clear up the balance certificate dues in the proceeding pending against the plaintiff. Consequent¬ly, the suit was decreed in part. Not being satisfied with the said judgment and decree the plaintiff has come with the present appeal. 5. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the appellants strongly contends that fraud and coercion by the defendants was clearly inferable from the statements of P.Ws. 6 & 10 and the surrounding circumstances and it was not at all reasonable on the part of the trial Court to brush aside the evidence of P.Ws. 6 & 10 with simple observation that one was a dismissed Mohourir and the other was a dismissed Government servant. According to him, P.Ws. 6 & 10 were reliable witnesses and they directly proved that defendants 2 & 3 were in a position to coerce the plaintiff to execute the sale deed, Ext.A. He points out that undisputed the plaintiff was deep in debt and certificate proceeding as well as execution proceeding was pending against him for realization of the loans and that defendant 3, who was working as the Bench Clerk to the Certificate Officer, was helping the plaintiff in getting adjournments and delaying the execution of the writ of attachment and body warrant. He further indicates that defendant No.2 was the Industry Officer, who was in charge of realization of the loan and in view of such advantageous position, they had all the scope to dictate the terms and the plaintiff had no option but to obey their dictums, reasonable or unreasonable. Mr. Bose submits that these circumstances coupled with the filing of the criminal cases subsequently by the defendants 1 & 2 were good enough to raise inference that fraud and coercion were practiced by defendants on the plaintiff. 6. Mr. B. H. Mohanty, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that execution of the sale deed for the suit land having been admitted by the plaintiff, burden was on him to establish practice of fraud and coercion by defendants in obtaining document, but he failed to produce any convincing evidence in that regard. 6. Mr. B. H. Mohanty, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that execution of the sale deed for the suit land having been admitted by the plaintiff, burden was on him to establish practice of fraud and coercion by defendants in obtaining document, but he failed to produce any convincing evidence in that regard. He states that P.Ws. 6 & 10 were not at all reliable witnesses and learned trial Court was justified in rejecting their evidence. He points out that even otherwise there was no document or reliable evidence to support the claim of P.Ws. 6 & 10 that there was any agreement giving a right to the plaintiff to enjoy the fruits of the trees standing on the suit land for a period of 18 months in lieu of Rs.20,000/- out of the consideration money. On the contrary, there was Ext.4 and other circumstances to the effect that plaintiff was to take the fruits from the suit land on payment of an amount of Rs.1800/-. Mr. Mohanty further contends that the allegation of fraud and coer¬cion is belied from the very fact that defendant No.3, who was globe in hand with the plaintiff in delaying the certificate proceeding deliberately remained absent in order to farther the case of the plaintiff. Mr. Mohanty argues that plea of fraud and coercion and agreement involving Rs.20,000/- is not acceptable in the broad probabilities of the case; in essence Mr. Mohanty supports the impugned order in its entirely. 7. Although several issues were framed the main issue involved in the suit was whether the sale deed, Ext. A, was obtained by practise of fraud or coercion and whether there was ever any agreement between the parties contemplating enjoyment of fruits of the trees by the plaintiff for a period of 18 months in liue of Rs.20,000/- which is allegedly a part of the consideration amount. This aspect is related to Issue Nos. 3, 4, 6 & 9. Execu¬tion of the sale deed, Ext. A, is admitted by the plaintiff. The allegation, however, is that the said sale deed was obtained by the defendants 1 & 2 using fraud and coercion. Law in this regard is settled. Once execution of a sale deed is admitted, the party pleading fraud or coercion has to establish by positive evidence that such fraud or coercion was practiced. A, is admitted by the plaintiff. The allegation, however, is that the said sale deed was obtained by the defendants 1 & 2 using fraud and coercion. Law in this regard is settled. Once execution of a sale deed is admitted, the party pleading fraud or coercion has to establish by positive evidence that such fraud or coercion was practiced. If such allegation is not substantiated, then the genuineness of the transaction has to be inferred. In this regard the observation of this Court in the cases of Mahima Byasadeba Gadi and others v. Dinabandhu Mohanty and others, AIR 1960 Orissa 16; Gurubari Lenka and another v. Dulani Thakurani and others, 36 (1970) CLT 1274; and Bauribandhu Naik and others v. Radhamoni Mohanty, 41 (1975) CLT (I) 383 may be referred. So, the burden of proving the alleged fraud and coercion was there on the plaintiff-appellant. As has been said, the plaintiff examined 10 witnesses he himself being P.W.10. P.W. 1 was the Clerk of the Sub-Registry Office. Jagatsinghpur, who proved the entry in the Sale Registration Register Ext.1, which says that Ext. A was registered on 2.6.1978 and also proved the scoring of the amount noted on the document by the Sub-Registrar. P.W. 2 is a clerk of Cuttack Collector, who produced the record of the Certificate Case No. 13/73-74. P.W. 3 is a Clerk of Jagat¬singhpur Tahasil, who spoke about the issue of the writ in the certificate case against the plaintiff. P.W.4 is the Process Server, who stated that he served that writ and also proved the signature, Ext.2. P.W. 5 is the Record Keeper of the S.D.O.’s office, Jagatsinghpur, who spoke about the copy application of the plaintiff and grant of the copy under Ext. 3. P.W. 7 is a private Amin, who measured the suit property on being called by defendant No.2. P.W.8 is a person, who spoke about a negotiation with the plaintiff for purchase of the suit land for Rs.60,000/- for his brother. P.W.9 spoke about the purchase of the land ad¬joining the land of the plaintiff situated under Plot No.1090 and about the plantation of trees on the suit land by the plaintiff. P.W. 9(A) is a person, who spoke about the arrest of the plain¬tiff and his release on bail. Out of the above noted witnesses, P.Ws. P.W.9 spoke about the purchase of the land ad¬joining the land of the plaintiff situated under Plot No.1090 and about the plantation of trees on the suit land by the plaintiff. P.W. 9(A) is a person, who spoke about the arrest of the plain¬tiff and his release on bail. Out of the above noted witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 5 and 9(A) are technical and formal wit¬nesses and their evidence are not much relevant to the above noted issues. P.W.8 similarly spoke about the probable market value of the suit land. The only relevant evidence with regard to the contested issues is that of P.Ws. 6 & 10 from the side of the plaintiff. These witnesses essentially say that on 28.5.1978 defendants 2 & 3 came to the farm house of the plaintiff and offered to purchase the suit land for defendant No.1 and that after discussion price was settled at Rs.50,000/- and an agree¬ment was entered into for that sale. These witnesses said that on that very date an advance of Rs.5,101/- was given out of which plaintiff received cash of Rs.101/- and Rs.5000/- was kept back by defendants 2 & 3 to be deposited in the certificate proceed¬ing. P.Ws 6 & 10 allege that subsequently, this amount of Rs.5,000/- was not deposited in that proceeding, but concealing that fact these defendants took the sale deed Ext.A from him on 28.5.1978 by use of fraud and coercion. According to them,the plaintiff was called to the office of Advocate Kanduri babu at Jagatsinghpur and by the time he arrived the sale document had already been scribed. Finding that consideration has been noted as Rs.30,000/- in spite of Rs.50,000/- and some error in the schedule of the land mentioned in the deed, the plaintiff was reluctant to sign that document, but defendant No.3 threatened the plaintiff that unless he executes the document or refunds Rs.8,101/- (Rs.5,101/- being advance and Rs.3,000/- being the cost of the stamp papers) body warrant would be issued in the certificate case and he would arrest. P.Ws. P.Ws. 6 & 10 said that the defendants also persuaded the plaintiff to sign and execute the sale deed giving an undertaking that the plaintiff would be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the trees standing on a part of the suit land for a period of 18 months towards the remaining consideration of Rs.20,000/- and that basing on such persuasion the plaintiff signed and executed the sale deed, but ultimately, the defendants cheated him and did not even deposit the outstand¬ing amount in the certificate proceeding and obstructed him from entering into the suit land or enjoying the fruits of the trees. Defendants 2 & 3 as D.W. 5 & 7 in their evidence stoutly denied the above noted statement of P.Ws 6 & 10. They stated clearly that plaintiff came to their house and proposed to sell the suit land for Rs.30,000/- and accepted an advance of Rs.5,000/- on that very day and later on voluntarily executed the registered sale deed Ext.A after receiving Rs.5,000/- in cash in the Sub-Regis¬trar Office and accepting an undertaking by the defendant No.1 that Rs.20,000/- would be deposited in the certificate proceeding pending against the plaintiff. Besides the evidence of P.Ws. 6 & 10 and the circumstance that defendant No.3 was a clerk of the Certificate Officer before whom the certificate proceeding of the plaintiff was pending, nothing more was available to support the case of the plaintiff. There was no document to show that the parties ever entered into an agreement for sale of the suit land for Rs.50,000/-. On the other hand, the recital in Ext.A was there to indicate that the sale price was settled at Rs.30,000/-. Admittedly, the plaintiff, P.W.10, was working for some time as Advocate’s Clerk and he admitted in his cross-examination that execution of sale documents and registration of documents before the Sub-Registrar were not subject familiar to him and he had in fact attended several such transactions. Admittedly, the plaintiff, P.W.10, was working for some time as Advocate’s Clerk and he admitted in his cross-examination that execution of sale documents and registration of documents before the Sub-Registrar were not subject familiar to him and he had in fact attended several such transactions. He does not give satis¬factory explanation why he signed and executed Ext.A, if the consideration money agreed upon was not correctly mentioned in the document or if there was subsequent change in the terms of the sale, why such terms about the plaintiff’s enjoying fruits of the trees standing on the suit land for a period of 18 months in lie of remaining Rs.20,000/- of the consideration money were not mentioned in the sale document or why such a separate docu¬ment was not executed about such terms. According to P.Ws. 6 & 10, Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 promised to deposit Rs.5,000/- out of advance of Rs.5,101/- in the certificate proceeding, but they have not offered any explanation why the plaintiff, without ascertaining whether the amount was deposited in the certificate proceeding or not, signed the sale document or why he did not complain about such non-deposit before the Sub-Registrar. Since the plaintiff himself had experience as an advocate’s clerk and was acquainted with the documents of sale, agreement etc. and their registration it cannot be believed that he blindly signed the sale documents and executed the same before the Sub-Regis¬trar, if actually fraud or coercion was undertaken by the defend¬ant Nos. 2 and 3. 8. Mr. Bose strenuously argues that learned trial Court unreasonably discarded the evidence of P.W.6 with observation that he has been dismissed from government service. A close reading of the statement of P.W.6 would show that he himself admitted that he was working as the Revenue Inspector and re¬signed from that job. In cross-examination he admitted that he cannot say the date of his dismissal from Government service. Such statement prompted the Court to believe that P.W.6 was dismissed from service. Be that as it may, the reliability of the evidence of a witness has to be assessed on its own strength and not on other consideration. In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.6 does not appear to be very convincing and appears to be an after thought to support the case of plaintiff P.W.10. 9. As against evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 10, D.Ws. In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.6 does not appear to be very convincing and appears to be an after thought to support the case of plaintiff P.W.10. 9. As against evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 10, D.Ws. 5 & 7 have clearly supported the terms and conditions mentioned in Ext. A. When the execution of the document is admitted, the terms and conditions noted in that document would be presumed to be true unless proved otherwise. The statements of D.Ws. 5 and 7 and the contents of the Ext.4 clearly support the terms and conditions laid down in Ext.A. When the presumption of correctness of the terms and conditions of Ext.A was available and when the docu¬ments and evidence were also available to support the contents of Ext. A and when no specific evidence was available from the side of the plaintiff to establish that fraud was practised, the issue of fraud was rightly decided against the plaintiff. 10. Regarding coercion, law is settled that evidence of imminent danger to the person or property of the vendor shown by the vendee has to be shown and further it is to be shown that such action on the part of the vendee is punishable under law. Here the allegation of the plaintiff is that the defendant No.3 threatened to issue body warrant and get him arrested in the certificate proceeding unless he executes the sale deed or re¬funds Rs.8,101/-. Admittedly, the parties had entered into an agreement for sale of the suit land and a sale document had already been scribed after purchase of stamp paper worth Rs.3,000/- and advance amount had also been paid. In such a situation, insistence for execution of sale deed or refund of the advance amount and the amount spent for purchase of the stamp paper by itself cannot amount to coercion. That apart, there is no indication any where in the evidence of P.W.6, 7 or 10 that the plaintiff complained before any authority or any person about such threat of defendant No.3. It is admitted that, plaintiff never raised any protest before the Sub-Registrar about any coercion on him. On the contrary, on the very day of execution of Ext.A he entered into an agreement under Ext.4 regarding enjoy¬ment of the fruits of the trees standing on the suit land. It is admitted that, plaintiff never raised any protest before the Sub-Registrar about any coercion on him. On the contrary, on the very day of execution of Ext.A he entered into an agreement under Ext.4 regarding enjoy¬ment of the fruits of the trees standing on the suit land. Such being the conduct of the plaintiff, there cannot be any inference that there was any coercion by the defendant No.3 and that under such coercion Ext.A was executed. Learned trial Judge thus right¬ly came to infer that Ext.A is a genuine document and that it was not signed or executed under fraud or coercion. 11. Regarding the agreement relating to enjoyment of the fruits of the trees submission of Mr. Bose is that the plaintiff who was selling his suit land along with the standing trees thereon could not have agreed to enjoy the fruits of those trees by paying money to the purchasers. According to him, the circum¬stances narrated by D.Ws. 5 and 7 and contents of Ext.4 are highly improbable. Mr. Mohanty counter argues that normally when a vendor sells a piece of land with standing fruit bearing trees thereon for sentimental reasons a vendor is allowed to take fruits of those trees available at the time of sale as, being the planter of those threes he should at least be allowed to take the fruits before parting with the property. According to him, for the aforesaid reason, the term entered into in Ext.4 was quite rea¬sonable and normal. Execution of this document is not denied by the plaintiff. No satisfactory explanation has been provided in the evidence why and how the terms and condition of the Ext.4 are not genuine and why the plaintiff executed this document when, according to him, the agreement between the parties was that the plaintiff would enjoy the fruits for a period of 18 months in liew of the alleged balance consideration of Rs.20,000/-. If actually, there would have been execution of agreement as stated by the plaintiff, then there was no scope for execution of an agreement like Ext.4. For these reasons, one has to infer that the so called agreement propounded by the plaintiff is an after thought and that Ext.4 was a genuine agreement. 12. The evidence of the parties as well as the documents such as Exts. For these reasons, one has to infer that the so called agreement propounded by the plaintiff is an after thought and that Ext.4 was a genuine agreement. 12. The evidence of the parties as well as the documents such as Exts. B & C show that criminal proceedings were initiated regarding possession and reaping of crops and the order shows that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 remained in possession and did not allow the plaintiff to enter into the suit land or to take any fruit from the trees standing thereon although, according to Ext.4, they had taken an amount of Rs.1,800/-. So, rightly the learned trial Judge directed Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 to refund Rs.1,800/- to the plaintiff-appellant and also to clear up the arrear dues pending against the plaintiff in the certificate proceeding. 13. The foregoing discussions show that the findings of learned trial Court relating to issue Nos.3, 4, 6 & 9 are in tune with the evidence and circumstance. So, the findings do not call for any kind of interference by this Court. Regarding maintainability of the suit, the impugned judgment shows that these issues were not seriously pressed by the parties. Thus, in the result, the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed on contest. However, in the peculiar circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs in the appeal. Appeal dismissed.