Judgment S.N.HUSSAIN, J. 1. This first appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant challenging Judgment and decree dated 26th July, 1988, by which the learned 5th Subordinate Judge, Motihari (East Champaran) dismissed Title Suit No. 76 of 1983, filed by the Appellant for a decree of specific performance of contract against the Defendant-Respondents and for directing Defendants No. 1 and 2 to execute and get registered deed of sale with respect to suit property in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellant on receiving the balance consideration money amounting to Rs. 18,000,within the period prescribed by the Court, failing which, the same be executed and registered through the agency of the Court. 2. The suit premises, as detailed in Schedule-I of the plaint, is 14 dhurs of land out of Plot No. 328, appertaining to Khata No. 30 and 10 dhurs of land out of Plot No. 331, appertaining to Khata No. 142, alongwith a tiled house standing thereon bearing Holding No. 254 of Ward No. 13, Tauzi No. 1351. Thana No. 169 situated in Mohalla Agarwa under Motihari Police Station within the district of East Champaran. 3. The abovementioned title suit was made analogous to Eviction Suit No. 1 of 1984, which was filed by the admitted original owner (who was Defendant No. 1 in the title suit) for eviction of one Md. Manzoorul Haque (not party in the title suit) from the same suit premises, claiming him to be his defaulter tenant. The said Md. Manzoorul Haque denied any relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the Plaintiff of the eviction suit and claimed that he was in possession of the suit premises on the basis of permission granted to him by Md. Hussain(Plaintiff of the title suit). The said Md. Hussain intervened in the eviction suit claiming that he was given possession of the suit premises by the admitted original owner (Plaintiff of the eviction suit and the Defendants in the title suit) as part performance of contract and he permitted the said occupant Md. Manzoorul Haque to live in the suit premises. 4. Both the aforesaid suits, namely, title suit and eviction suit, were tried together as analogous cases and were decided by a common judgment dated 26th July, 1988, by which while title suit filed by the Appellant for specific performance of contract was . Manzoorul Haque to live in the suit premises. 4. Both the aforesaid suits, namely, title suit and eviction suit, were tried together as analogous cases and were decided by a common judgment dated 26th July, 1988, by which while title suit filed by the Appellant for specific performance of contract was . dismissed, eviction suit filed by Respondent No. 1 for eviction of tenant Md. Manzoorul Haque was decreed. The decree, by which Eviction Suit No. 1 of 1984 filed by Respondent No. 1 wasdecreed, was not challenged either by the said tenant/occupant Md. Manzoorul Haque or by the present Appellant, who was Defendant No. 2 in the eviction suit and hence it attained finality. However, for executing the said eviction decree, the Plaintiff of the eviction suit, who is Respondent No. 1 in the instant appeal, filed Execution Case No. 7 of 1988 against the said tenant, in which the tenant, who was Defendant No. 1 in the eviction suit, filed a petition that he had already vacated the suit premises. Thereafter, the Appellant, who was intervenor-Defendant No. 2 in the eviction suit, filed a petition, which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 16 of 1992 for dispossal of Execution Case No. 7 of 1988 and the Executing Court by its order dated 28th November, 1997 allowed the.said miscellaneous case and rejected the execution case, holding that the decree of the eviction suit had become infructuous and not executable as the tenant/occupant had vacated the suit premises. Against the said order, the Decree Holder of the eviction suit, namely, Respondent No. 1 filed Civil Revision No. 395 of 1998, which was dismissed by this Court on 31st July, 1998. Against the said order passed by the High Court, the Decree Holder of the eviction suit (Respondent No. 1) filed Civil Appeal No. 2098 of 2000 before the Hon ble Supreme Court, which is pending. 5. Against the decree, by which the title suit filed by the Appellant for specific performance of contract was dismissed, the Plaintiff of the title suit filed the instant First Appeal. The claim of the Plaintiff-Appellant in the title suit was that Defendant No. 2, original owner of the suit premises, and her husband (Defendant No. 1) holding Power of Attorney on her behalf, negotiated with the Plaintiff for sale of the suit property and the once was fixed at Rs. The claim of the Plaintiff-Appellant in the title suit was that Defendant No. 2, original owner of the suit premises, and her husband (Defendant No. 1) holding Power of Attorney on her behalf, negotiated with the Plaintiff for sale of the suit property and the once was fixed at Rs. 35,000, out of which Rs. 17,000 was paid by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 1 as advance on 9th January, 1982, upon which Defendant No. 1 executed an agreement for sale (Mahadnama) in favour of the Plaintiff and put the Plaintiff in possession of the suit premises as part performance of contract on the same date. It was further claimed by the Plaintiff that Defendant No. 1 had promised to execute the sale deed shortly thereafter on receiving the balance consideration amount of Rs. 18,000, but subsequently Defendant No. 1 began avoiding the execution of sale deed on one pretext or the other. Hence, it is stated that the Plaintiff had to send a notice dated 16th February, 1983 (Exh.5) to the Respondents through his lawyer, but in reply Defendant No. 1 denied execution of any agreement for sale (Mahadnama) on 9th January, 1982 and also denied any delivery of possession and stated that the price of the suit property was orally fixed at Rs. 85,000, out of which Rs. 17,000 was paid as advance and Rs. 68,000 was the remaining consideration money, which the Plaintiff did not pay within the time fixed and hence, advance money of Rs. 17,000 was forfeited. Thus, according to the Plaintiff, he was constrained to file the title suit for specific performance of contract. 6. On the other hand, both the Defendants appeared and contested the suit and filed their written statements claiming that the suit was not maintainable and the Plaintiff had no right or any valid cause of action for filing the suit, as the alleged agreement for sale (Mahadnama) dated 9th January, 1982 is an invalid document inadmissible in evidence, which cannot be basis of the suit. They claimed that there was an agreement for sale between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 at Gaya on 9th January, 1982, but that was absolutely oral, according to which the consideration money was fixed at Rs. 85,000. out of which Rs. They claimed that there was an agreement for sale between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 at Gaya on 9th January, 1982, but that was absolutely oral, according to which the consideration money was fixed at Rs. 85,000. out of which Rs. 17,000 was paid in advance, for which a receipt was granted by Defendant No. 1 in Urdu, which had been interpolated by the Plaintiff by adding a paragraph in Hindi, which does not even bear the signature of any of the Defendants and in which neither the detail of the suit property was given nor any period was mentioned within which balance amount was to be paid and the deed of sale was to be executed. Defendants also denied to have ever put the Plaintiff in possession of the suit premises and claimed that the suit property throughout remained in possession of the Defendants sometimes through their tenants. 7. The Trial Court framed several issues out of which Issue Nos. (i) to (vi) and (xii) concerned the title suit filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant for specific performance of contract, which are as follows : (i) Whether Title Suit No. 76 of 1983 as framed and filed is maintainable? (ii) Has the Plaintiff got valid cause of action and right to sue? (iii) Whether the alleged Mahadnama dated 9th January, 1982, is valid, legal and admissible document and can be basis of any suit? (iv) Whether Rs. 17,000 was received by Defendant No. 1 against the alleged Mahadnama for sale at Rs. 35,000 or against oral contract for sale at Rs. 85,000? (v) Whether the Plaintiff of Title Suit No. 76 of 1983 was put in possession of the suit house by Defendant No. 1 ? (vi) Whether the alleged Mahadnama is enforceable in law and the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of specific performance of contract? (vii) To what other relief or reliefs, if any, the Plaintiff is entitled? 8. Although several witnesses were examined on behalf of both the sides, but only P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 were adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff with respect to the agreement for sale, out of whom P.W. 7 was the Plaintiff-Appellant himself. Similarly, on behalf of the Defendant-Respondents, P.Ws. 2, 4 and 7 deposed with respect to value of the land at the time of agreement for sale, whereas, D.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 were adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff with respect to the agreement for sale, out of whom P.W. 7 was the Plaintiff-Appellant himself. Similarly, on behalf of the Defendant-Respondents, P.Ws. 2, 4 and 7 deposed with respect to value of the land at the time of agreement for sale, whereas, D.Ws. 3, 5, 6 and 9 deposed with respect to the oral agreement for sale and non-execution of any written agreement for sale, out of whom P.W.9 was Defendant-Respondent No. 1 himself. 9. The documents produced by the Plaintiff include Exhs. 1 and 1/A, which are letters written by Defendant No. 1 dated 14th May, 1981, and 28th September, 1981, respectively, whereas, Exh. "2" is a postal envelope, Exh. "3" is a receipt on Revenue Stamps written by Defendant No. 1 in urdu dated 9th January, 1982 with respect to Rs. 17,000. On the same page, signatures of two witnesses to the said receipt, namely, Md. Zakirullah Khan and Mukhtar Ahmad, in Urdu dated 9th January, 1982 is marked as Exh. "3A". On the same very page, some statement written in Deonagri script containing signature of no one except Katib Revaz Ahmad dated 9th January, 1982 is marked as Exh.4, Exh.5 is a notice dated 16th February, 1983, issued by Shri Jaleshwar Nath, Advocate, sent on behalf of the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 1. The two exhibits on behalf of the Defendant-Respondents included in the Paper Book are letters written by Md. Manzoorul Haque (tenant/occupant) to Defendant-Respondent No. 1. 10. Considering the arguments of the parties and the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court by its impugned judgment arrived at the findings: (i) that the advance money was paid by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 1 at Gaya and not at Motihari; (ii) that Exh.4 was void document due to uncertainty and vagueness, which cannot be the basis of any suit for specific performance of contract as it is not enforceable in law; (iii) that Plaintiff had paid Rs. 17,000 as advance out of the total consideration money of Rs. 17,000 as advance out of the total consideration money of Rs. 85,000 on the basis of oral agreement but was never ready to pay the remaining amount, hence Plaintiff is not entitled for a decree of specific performance of contract; (iv) that the Plaintiff failed to prove that Defendants had ever handed over possession of the suit premises to him as part performance of contract or that he ever came in possession of the suit land and gave permissible possession thereof to Md. Manzoorul Haque; (v) that the title suit as framed and filed was not maintainable and the Plaintiff had no valid cause of action or right to sue. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the title suit filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant was dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. 11. From the pleadings and arguments of the parties, the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, as well as from the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court, it is quite apparent that the agreement for sale of the suit premises dated 9th January, 1982 between the Plaintiff-Appellant and Defendant-Respondent and payment of advance of Rs. 17,000 by the Plaintiff to the Defendants are not in dispute and are facts admitted by both the parties. The points of contentions between the aforesaid parties in the instant case, which have to be decided in this First Appeal, are as follows: (a) Whether agreement for sale dated 9th January, 1982 was oral or was in writing? (b) Whether Exh. 4 was the written agreement for sale of the suit premises between the Plaintiff and the Defendants? (c) Whether Exh. 3 was acceptance of Defendant No. 1 of the alleged agreement for sale (Exh.4) or was a mere receipt of Rs. 17,000 executed by Defendant No. 1 on behalf of his wife Defendant No. 2? (d) Whether the total consideration amount fixed between the parties was Rs. 35,000 or Rs. 85,000? (e) Whether no period was fixed for execution of the sale deed as per the claim of the Plaintiff on the oasis of written agreement for sale (Exh. 4) or three months time for the same was fixed as per oral agreement between the parties, as claimed by the Defendants, failing which the advance of Rs. 17,000 paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants was to be forfeited? 4) or three months time for the same was fixed as per oral agreement between the parties, as claimed by the Defendants, failing which the advance of Rs. 17,000 paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants was to be forfeited? (f) Whether the Plaintiff-Appellant failed to perform his part of the contract within the time prescribed due to which the agreement for sale stood nullified and the advance amount paid by him stood forfeited? (g) Whether the Defendants had ever handed over possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff as part performance of the contract? 12. Points(a), (b), (c)and(d): . Plaintiff-Appellant in support of his claim with respect to a written agreement for sale, has produced Exh. 4, apart from Exhs. 1 and 1 (a), which are letters written by Defendant No. 1 to another person and Exh.5, which is lawyers notice on behalf of the Plaintiff, sent to Respondent No. 1. In that regard, the Plaintiff has also adduced P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 to support his claim. Out of the above mentioned documentary evidence Exhs. 1 and 1(a), namely, the letters written by Defendant No. 1 do not show that at any place he had admitted that there was a written agreement for sale between the parties or the consideration amount was fixed at Rs. 35,000. So far Exh.5 is concerned, it is a lawyers notice sent by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 1 and hence it is clearly a self serving document, which cannot legally prove the Plaintiffs claim that there was a written agreement for sale and the total consideration money was Rs.35,000. 13. Furthermore, Exh. 4 which is claimed by the Plaintiff to be an agreement for sale, is a two paragraphs document written in Deonagari script on the left side of a page, in which neither there is signature of the Plaintiff nor even of the Defendants. In the said document, neither detail of the subject-matter of the agreement for sale, namely, the suit premises, has been mentioned nor any period has been given within which the sale deed had to be executed and the only mention made is about the consideration amount of Rs. 35,000 and payment of advance money of Rs. 17,000. Said Exh. In the said document, neither detail of the subject-matter of the agreement for sale, namely, the suit premises, has been mentioned nor any period has been given within which the sale deed had to be executed and the only mention made is about the consideration amount of Rs. 35,000 and payment of advance money of Rs. 17,000. Said Exh. 4 was purported to be written by the Katib at the instance of Defendant No. 1 in Deonagri Script on the left side of a page, but the said portion does not contain the signature of Defendant No. 1 and it only bears the signature of the alleged Katib Revaz Ahmad. 14. So far oral evidence is concerned, P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 6 do not say that deed of agreement was executed in their presence nor they have made any statement with respect thereto. P.W.7 is the Plaintiff himself, whereas, P.W.5 is one of the two witnesses of Exh.3/A and P.W.3 is an outsider, who fought election for the President of India in the year 1967. P.Ws.5 and 3 stated that the consideration money was fixed at Rs. 35,000, out of Which Rs. 17,000 was paid, but with respect to execution of the agreement for sale, they merely stated that in their presence Defendant No. 1 put his signature on the "Hashiya" of the page showing receipt of Rs. 17,000. 15. On the other hand, D.Ws. 3,5,6 and 9 deposed on behalf of the Defendants, out of whom P.W. 9 was Defendant No. 1 himself. They specifically stated that there was no written agreement for sale and Defendant No. 1 did not sign on any such document. They further stated that the agreement for sale was oral at Gaya and it was agreed between the parties that the consideration amount would be Rs. 85,000, out of which Rs. 17,000 was paid by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 1 in lieu of which only a receipt of that amount was executed by Defendant No. 1, which is Exh.3 and was witnessed by two witnesses, namely, Md. Zakirullah Khan and Mukhtar Ahmad, which is Exh.3/A. 16. From the materials on record, it is quite apparent that there are oral evidence on behalf of both the parties on the said point supporting their respective claims. But, from the depositions of Plaintiffs witnesses, it appears that P.Ws. Zakirullah Khan and Mukhtar Ahmad, which is Exh.3/A. 16. From the materials on record, it is quite apparent that there are oral evidence on behalf of both the parties on the said point supporting their respective claims. But, from the depositions of Plaintiffs witnesses, it appears that P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 6 have not made any statement with respect to the written agreement for sale (Exh.4) and only P.Ws. 3, 5 and 7 have deposed with regard to the said agreement out of whom P.W.7 is the Plaintiff himself. However, from the evidence of P.W.5 Mukhtar Ahmad, who is a witness of Exh.3, it would appear that he specifically stated in Paragraph No. 1 of his deposition that Defendant No. 1 put his signature only with respect to receipt of the money, which is Exh.3. So far P.W.3 is concerned, he has also stated in Paragraph No. 1 of his deposition that Defendant No. 1 has put his signature on the "Hashiya" of the page (Exh.3), i.e., not below the statement of agreement written in Deonagari Script (Exh.4). Word "Hashiya" means blank edges of a page apart from the main contents hence, even according to the said witnesses, Exhs. 3 and 3/A were not part of the main contents of the alleged agreement, namely, Exh.4. 17. So far Exhs. 4, 3 and 3/A are concerned, all of them are on various portions of the same page, out of which Exh.4 typed in Deonagri Script is on the left half of the page; whereas Exhs. 3 and 3/A are hand-written in Urdu vertically on the right portion of that page. A bare perusal of Exh.4 clearly shows that neither Defendant No. 1 nor even the Plaintiff had put their signatures below the statement made in Deonagari script, which the Plaintiff claims to be the written agreement for sale. Furthermore, neither the detail of the premises, which was going to be sold, was given in the said alleged agreement, nor the period within which the sale deed had to be executed was mentioned therein. Hence, Exh.4 cannot be legally deemed to be any agreement, much less an agreement for sale. 18. It is well-settled that it is not open to the parties of the case to attempt to remove defect or vagueness or uncertainty by relying upon any intrinsic evidence. Hence, Exh.4 cannot be legally deemed to be any agreement, much less an agreement for sale. 18. It is well-settled that it is not open to the parties of the case to attempt to remove defect or vagueness or uncertainty by relying upon any intrinsic evidence. Reference in that regard may be made to Sections 93 and 94 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1/1872) as well as the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel and Ors. V/s. Lalbhai Trikumlal Mills Ltd. reported in AIR 1958 SC 512 . A mere mention of the consideration amount and advance amount paid cannot make the document in question a valid deed of agreement for sale. 19. So far Exh.3 is concerned, it is specific pleading of the Defendants supported by their evidence that said Exh.3 is merely a receipt of advance of Rs. 17,000 by Defendant No. 1 on revenue stamp, which was witnessed by two witnesses vide Exh.3/A. The fact that the execution of Exh.3 by Defendant No. 1 was merely a receipt of advance of Rs. 17,000 is supported by one of the two witnesses mentioned above although he deposed on behalf of the Plaintiff as P.W.5. Furthermore, said receipt (Exh.3) is on the right half of the page vertically and that too on two adhesive revenue stamps of Rs. 20 each, which clearly show that it was only with respect to money receipt and not with respect to any agreement put in writing. The signatures of the two witnesses on Exh.3/A are also on the sarhe side and it is clear from a plain reading thereof that the said two persons were witnesses of only the receipt (Exh.3) and not of the alleged agreement (Exh. 4). 20. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is quite apparent that Exh.3 is merely a receipt executed by Defendant No. 1 after receiving the advance amount of Rs. 17,000. It further transpires that two paragraphs (Exh.4) regarding the alleged agreement were inserted subsequently by interpretation as it contains neither the signature of the proposed vendor nor the signature of the proposed vendee below the said alleged agreement and in their places, only the signature of the Katib has been put. 21. 17,000. It further transpires that two paragraphs (Exh.4) regarding the alleged agreement were inserted subsequently by interpretation as it contains neither the signature of the proposed vendor nor the signature of the proposed vendee below the said alleged agreement and in their places, only the signature of the Katib has been put. 21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, only the evidence of the Plaintiff as P.W.7 remains to support his pleadings regarding written agreement for sale (Exh.4), whereas, on the other hand, D.Ws. 3, 5 and 6 had fully supported the claim of the Defendants, apart from D.W.9, who was Defendant No. 1 and they clearly and unambiguously proved that there was no written agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, rather there was only an oral agreement between the parties at Gaya for sale of the suit premises, according to which the amount of consideration fixed was Rs. 85,000 and the Plaintiff had to pay the remaining consideration amount within three months thereafter, failing which the advance amount was to be forfeited. Hence, the alleged Mahadnama dated 9th January, 1982, (Exh.4) not being a valid, legal and admissible document, nor there being any reliable evidence to support the same, the claim of the Defendants, fully supported by reliable and independent witnesses, with regard to the oral agreement has been rightly accepted by the learned Trial Court. 22. Points (e) and (f): The Plaintiffs claim was that the total consideration amount was Rs. 35,000, out of which Rs. 17,000 was paid as advance, whereas, Defendants claimed that total consideration amount agreed between the parties was Rs. 85,000 out of Rs. 17,000 was paid as an advance. The claim of the Plaintiff was dependent upon the alleged written agreement (Exh.4), which has been found to be not a valid, legal and admissible document and hence, on its basis the claim of the Plaintiff cannot be allowed. Apart from that there is no reliable evidence adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff to show that the total consideration amount fixed was Rs. 35,000. 23. So far the oral evidence is concerned, the depositions of P.Ws. 3 and 5 are ambiguous and show that they merely wanted to support the Plaintiff (P.W.7), whereas, on the other hand, D.Ws. Apart from that there is no reliable evidence adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff to show that the total consideration amount fixed was Rs. 35,000. 23. So far the oral evidence is concerned, the depositions of P.Ws. 3 and 5 are ambiguous and show that they merely wanted to support the Plaintiff (P.W.7), whereas, on the other hand, D.Ws. 3, 5 and 6 appear to be more reliable and independent and they have also given clear statements that oral agreement was arrived at between the parties at Gaya, in which Rs. 85,000 was fixed as consideration amount. They have also stated that the value of the suit premises in 1981-82 was above Rs. 1 lac and according to the agreement the sale deed was to be executed within three months of the agreement, failing which the advance paid would be forfeited. 24. Furthermore, the preparation of an invalid, fraudulent and inadmissible document regarding alleged agreement (Exh.4) created by the Plaintiff making interpolations on the page containing Exhs. 3 and 3/A clearly shows that it was merely to make out a case that total consideration money was Rs. 35,000 and not Rs. 85,000, which would be clear from the fact that no other statements regarding detail of the land and period within which the sale deed had to be executed, were even mentioned therein. 25. In the said circumstances, the learned Trial Court has rightly found that the total amount of consideration money was Rs. 85,000 out of which Rs. 17,000 was paid by the Plaintiff as advance, but the balance amount of Rs. 68,000 was not paid by the Plaintiff within the prescribed period and hence, he was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract due to which the oral agreement automatically stood nullified and the advance money was rightly forfeited due to the failure of the Plaintiff himself, as per the oral agreement between the parties, which is proved by valid evidence. Accordingly, the said findings are hereby affirmed. 26. Point (g): The claim of the Plaintiff is that he was out in possession of the suit premises by Defendant No. I in part performance of the agreement for sale. Accordingly, the said findings are hereby affirmed. 26. Point (g): The claim of the Plaintiff is that he was out in possession of the suit premises by Defendant No. I in part performance of the agreement for sale. Although some witnesses of the Plaintiff stated that they had seen him in possession of the suit premises, but only P.W.3 and P.W.5, apart from P.W.7 the Plaintiff himself stated that Defendant No. 1 handed over possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff as part performance of the agreement for sale. Whereas on the other hand several witnesses of the Defendants stated that the Defendants had throughout been in possession of the suit premises and the Plaintiff never came in possession thereof but out of them D.Ws. 3,5 and 6, apart from D.W.9 Defendant No. 1, specifically stated that the Plaintiff was never put in possession of the suit premises by the Defendants as part performance of the agreement for sale. 27. So far the question of onus is concerned, it was squarely upon the Plaintiff to prove that he was put in possession of the suit premises by the Defendants as part performances of the agreement for sale, but he miserably failed to support his claim by any valid evidence whatsoever. Even in the alleged written agreement for sale produced by the Plaintiff as Exh.4 as well as in the receipt of Rs. 17,000 executed by Defendant No. 1 produced by the Plaintiff as Exh.3 no statement is made that the Plaintiff was ever put in possession of the suit premises by the Defendants either in part performance of the agreement for sale or otherwise. Furthermore, after proper evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by both the parties, the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the claim of the Plaintiff as he miserably failed to prove that he was ever put in possession of the suit premises by the Defendants. 28. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, the said judgment and decree are hereby affirmed and this appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there would be no order as to costs.