Judgment :- These Appeals are preferred against the concurrent findings dismissing the Appellants suit for Specific Performance and decreeing the suit filed by the 5th Respondent for declaration and for possession. 2. Appellant is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.126/1997 and Defendant in O.S.No.125/1998. For convenience, parties are referred as per their array in the suits. .3. Uncontroverted facts are that the properties in 1) T.S.No.41/2 -1.52 acres out of 3.78 acres with Well, electric motor pump set, service connection; 2) T.S.No.42/2 -3.42 acres and 3) T.S.No.216/11 - 0.96 acre originally belonged to Namasivayam. He owned a total extent of 8.20 acres. The said Namasivayam had executed a registered General Power of Attorney dated 12. 1989 empowering his son Sampath kumar, 3rd Respondent to deal with all the properties including suit properties. Appellant was the attesting witness in Ex.A1 Power of Attorney deed. Thereafter, he had purchased an extent of 2.26 acres out of 8.20 acres from 3rd Respondent Sampath kumar under Ex.A6 registered sale deed dated 13.04.1992. On 06.05.1997 under Ex.A2 registered sale deed, 5th Respondent Rani in S.A.No.280/2007 purchased the suit property in T.S.No.216/11 to an extent of 0.96 acre. 4. Case of the Appellant is that Namasivayam agreed to sell the suit properties for a total consideration of Rs.1,47,500/- and received a sum of Rs.1,27,500/- as advance and executed Ex.B4 agreement of sale on 110. 1995. Sale was agreed to be completed within a period of three months. It is the further case of Appellant that he has paid further sum of Rs.5,000/- to the said Namasivayam. According to the Appellant, since Namasivayam was not forthcoming to perform his part of contract, he filed O.S.No.126/1997 for Specific Performance. Appellant also contended that he had been in lawful possession of the properties from 1982 as he was put in possession of the suit properties as lessee. 5. Respondents resisted the suit contending that Appellant was permitted to look after the properties from 1982, since 1st Respondent and others were living in Madras. As per Ex.B9/Ex.A6, 3rd Respondent Sampath kumar had executed sale deed in favour of the Appellant in T.S.No.41/2 to an extent of 2.26 acres. 3rd Respondent had also executed Ex.A2 sale deed dated 06.05.1997 and sold 96 cents in T.S.No.216/11 to 5th Respondent Rani. According to the Respondents, Ex.B4 agreement of sale was not executed and the same is fabricated one. 6. 3rd Respondent had also executed Ex.A2 sale deed dated 06.05.1997 and sold 96 cents in T.S.No.216/11 to 5th Respondent Rani. According to the Respondents, Ex.B4 agreement of sale was not executed and the same is fabricated one. 6. On the strength of Ex.A2 sale deed, 5th Respondent Rani filed suit in O.S.No.256/1997 before District Munsif Court, Arni for declaration and recovery of possession and for mesne profits. Later at the instance of Appellant, the said suit was transferred to Sub Court, Arni and re-numbered as O.S.No.125/1998. .7. Appellant resisted the suit O.S.No.125/1998 contending that he has been in lawful possession of the property as a lessee in the property and that he entered into an agreement of sale (Ex.B4) with Namasivayam. Appellant contended that Ex.A2 sale deed in favour of the 5th Respondent was sham and nominal and not binding upon the Appellant who already entered into an agreement of sale with Namasivayam under Ex.B4. 8. On the basis of the above pleadings, trial court framed relevant Issues. In the trial court, both suits were taken up together and common evidence was recorded in O.S.No.125/1998. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trail court held that Ex.B4 agreement of sale is not a genuine one and Appellant was not entitled to get sale deed nor entitled to get back the alleged advance amount. Trial court further held that Appellant having attested in Ex.A1 deed of Power of Attorney could not have taken Ex.B4 agreement of sale from Namasivayam and on those findings dismissed the Appellants suit for Specific Performance and decreed the suit filed by the 5th Respondent Rani for declaration and possession. 9. Confirming the findings of the trial court, Appeals preferred by Appellant were also dismissed by the first Appellate court. Referring to the statement made by the Appellant in various letters, lower Appellate court recorded factual finding that Ex.B4 is a fabricated one and on the basis of Ex.B4, Appellant would not be entitled to get discretionary relief of Specific Performance. 10. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings, Appellant has preferred these Second Appeals. Since Second Appeals arise out of common Judgment and involving common points, both Second Appeals shall stand disposed of by this common Judgment. With the consent of both counsel, at the notice of admission stage itself, final hearing of Second Appeals was taken up. 11. 10. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings, Appellant has preferred these Second Appeals. Since Second Appeals arise out of common Judgment and involving common points, both Second Appeals shall stand disposed of by this common Judgment. With the consent of both counsel, at the notice of admission stage itself, final hearing of Second Appeals was taken up. 11. During the course of arguments the following substantial questions of law were raised for consideration in both the Second Appeals:- 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the courts below were right in disbelieving the genuineness of Ex.B-4 is correct in law? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the courts below were right in dismissing the suit without considering the vital issue and admission of the respondent that the appellant is in possession of the suit property, is correct in law? 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the courts below were right in not considering the Ex.B18 relating to patta issued in favour of the appellant which is exclusive possession of the appellant, is correct in law? 4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the courts below were right in decreeing the suit O.S.No.125/1998 when there is no suit or prayer to set aside the sale deed dated 13.04.92, Ex.B9, is correct in law? 5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Plaintiffs possession can be challenged by the respondent when the appellant was continuously in possession as lessee and thereafter as owner of the property as per Ex.B9? 12. Assailing the concurrent findings, Mr. A. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant contended that Courts below failed to consider that stamp papers in which Ex.B4 was embodied was contemporaneous and while so, Courts below erred in referring to the statement made in Ex.A10 letter. Pointing out that Appellant is in possession of the properties, learned Senior counsel for the Appellant has submitted that Courts below did not properly appreciate the factum of possession of the Appellant. It was further urged that though Courts below recorded concurrent findings, if there was any error in appreciation of evidence, exercising jurisdiction under Sec.100 C.P.C., High Court can certainly interfere. 13. It was further urged that though Courts below recorded concurrent findings, if there was any error in appreciation of evidence, exercising jurisdiction under Sec.100 C.P.C., High Court can certainly interfere. 13. Learned Senior counsel for the Appellant further urged that as per Secs.101 to 103 of Indian Evidence Act, Appellant has proved due execution of Ex.B4 by examining the witnesses and thus Appellant discharged the burden of proof cast upon him. The learned Senior counsel would also submit that stamp papers for Ex.B4 were purchased only on 110. 1995 and were contemporaneous and while so, Courts below were not right in referring to the statement in Ex.A15 letter. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that Courts below committed serious error in brushing aside the oral evidence on the ground that witnesses were relatives. In the light of denial of execution of Ex.B4, to prove Ex.B4 Appellant had examined himself and D.W.2 Thiruvengatam and D.W.3 Pachaiappan. D.Ws.2 and 3 have stated that Appellant had paid the entire sale consideration and thereafter, Appellant has borrowed Rs.20,000/- from Respondents 1 to 4. As pointed out by the Courts below, evidence of D.Ws.2 and 3 is contrary to the averments in the written statement. In the written statement, Appellant has alleged out of total sale consideration of Rs.1,47,500/-, he has paid Rs.1,27,500/- and on 11.05.1996 he has paid further sum of Rs.5,000/- and the balance sale consideration is only Rs.15,000/-. Credibility of oral evidence does not stand in isolation. Oral evidence has to be appreciated in the light of facts and circumstances of the case and conduct of parties. 14. Taking me through the evidence and various letters written by the Appellant Exs.A8 to A17, Mr. V. Anand, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that by independent analysis of evidence, lower Appellate court arrived at the conclusion that Ex.B4 is a fabricated document and thereby confirming the findings of trial court. Laying emphasis upon the statement of Appellant made in Ex.A15 letter, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that lower Appellate court rightly arrived at the conclusion that Appellant is went upon creating document using the signed stamp papers. It was further urged that when the Appellant has not come to the court with clean hands to entitle him for the discretionary relief of Specific Performance, concurrent findings of Courts below cannot be interfered with. 15. It was further urged that when the Appellant has not come to the court with clean hands to entitle him for the discretionary relief of Specific Performance, concurrent findings of Courts below cannot be interfered with. 15. Appellant claims relief of Specific Performance on the basis of Ex.B4 purportedly executed by Namasivayam. In the light of denial of execution of Ex.B4 by the Respondents, onus lies upon the Appellant to prove execution of Ex.B4 by acceptable evidence. Admittedly, Namasivayam had executed Ex.A1 deed of Power of Attorney dated 12. 1989 empowering his son Sampath kumar – 3rd Respondent to deal with all properties including suit properties. As pointed out by the Courts below, Appellant himself was the attesting witness to Ex.A1 registered Power of Attorney. Ex.A1 deed of Power of Attorney was not revoked till the death of Namasivayam on 30.09.2002. While Namasivayam had given power to his son 3rd Respondent to deal with his properties, it would have been quite improbable for the Appellant to have obtained Ex.B4 agreement of sale on 110. 1995 from the said Namasivayam. 16. Courts below repeatedly referred to Exs.A8 to A17 letters to arrive at the conclusion that Ex.B4 is fabricated one. A cursory perusal of Exs.A8 to A17 letters would indicate that Ex.B4 agreement of sale could not have been in existence as has been held by the Courts below. In Ex.A15 letter dated 19.05.1997, Appellant has stated that fortunately he had taken signature of Namasivayam in ten rupees stamp paper about six years ago and that he is in a position to use the same to his advantageous. Ex.A15 letter Appellant has stated as follows:- 17. In Ex.A13 letter dated 012. 1996, Appellant had intimated Namasivayam that he is ready to go over to meet them for discussion in respect of land. Ex.B4 agreement of sale is dated 110. 1995. As observed by the Courts below, if really, Ex.B4 was then in existence, Appellant would have definitely referred to the agreement of sale and would have insisted for execution of sale deed. But that was not to be so. 18. In Ex.A9 letter dated 012. 1995 also, Appellant has stated that he would go over on 12. 1995 and requesting Namasivayam to complete the negotiations. Ex.A10 letter dated 12.02.1996 is also to the same effect. But that was not to be so. 18. In Ex.A9 letter dated 012. 1995 also, Appellant has stated that he would go over on 12. 1995 and requesting Namasivayam to complete the negotiations. Ex.A10 letter dated 12.02.1996 is also to the same effect. There is no whisper about Ex.B4 in Exs.A8 to A17 letters nor they refer to any agreement of sale and asking for Specific Performance. As held by the Courts below, the tenor of letters would only indicate that Ex.B4 was not in existence. 19. Evidence is lacking in so far as alleged payment of sale consideration of Rs.1,47,500/- . According to the Appellant, he is said to have paid Rs.1,27,500/-on the date of agreement of sale viz., 110. 1995 and later he is alleged to have paid Rs.5,000/- to the said Namasivayam. As pointed out earlier, in Ex.A9 letter dated 012. 1995, Appellant has stated that he would come with Rs.1,00,000/- and requesting Namasivayam to complete the negotiation. Like wise, in Ex.A13 letter dated 012. 1996, Appellant has requested to complete the negotiation for sale. Absolutely, there is no material showing as to when and how Appellant has paid Rs.1,27,500/-. D.W.2 Thiruvengatam who was examined on the side of the Appellant stated that Appellant has paid the entire sale consideration. If that be so, question arises as to why Appellant did not obtain the sale deed. It is relevant to note that even for payment of sale consideration for purchase of 2.26 acres, Appellant has borrowed amount from Canara Bank. Pointing out borrowal of amount from Canara Bank, Courts below were right in holding that Appellant was not a man of means and that his version of paying sale consideration of Rs.1,27,500/- is unacceptable. 20. Based upon appreciation of evidence, Courts below arrived at the conclusion that Ex.B4 agreement of sale is not genuine one. No doubt, Appellant happened to be in possession of the suit property as lessee and that he might have been anxious to purchase the suit property. That would not in any way prove execution of Ex.B4. 21. Section 20 of Specific Relief Act preserves judicial discretion to Courts as to decreeing suit for Specific Performance. Courts are to meticulously consider all facts and circumstances of the case. That would not in any way prove execution of Ex.B4. 21. Section 20 of Specific Relief Act preserves judicial discretion to Courts as to decreeing suit for Specific Performance. Courts are to meticulously consider all facts and circumstances of the case. Based upon the facts and circumstances of the case, Courts below held that Appellant has not proved genuineness of Ex.B4 and that Appellant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of Specific Performance. The findings of the Courts below cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference. 22. 5th Respondent had purchased 96 cents in S.No.216/11 under Ex.A2 sale deed dated 06.05.1997. Like in any other deed of sale, recitals of handing over possession is incorporated in Ex.A2 sale deed. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant contended that since Appellant was in possession of the suit property as lessee, possession could not have been handed over to the 5th Respondent which Courts below failed to appreciate. This contention does not merit acceptance. Incorporation of recitals as to delivery of possession in Ex.A2 sale deed would not in any way vitiate Ex.A2 sale deed nor would it affect the right of 5th Respondent. Since, 5th Respondent has derived right and title through Ex.A2 sale deed to the said extent of 96 cents in S.No.216/11, Courts below rightly passed decree in O.S.No.125/1998 for declaration and recovery of possession. 23. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel for Appellant has submitted that when due execution of Ex.B4 was proved by the Appellant, Courts below ought to have granted the relief for alternative relief of refund of advance amount along with interest. This contention cannot be countenanced. When Ex.B4 was held to be not a genuine document and when Appellant was not entitled to the main relief of Specific Performance on the ground that Ex.B4 is a fabricated one, Appellant would not be entitled to seek for alternative plea of refund of advance amount. 24. Upon appreciation of evidence, Courts below recorded concurrent findings that Appellant is not entitled to the relief of Specific Performance based on Ex.B4. When the findings of the Courts below is based on evidence and materials on record, exercising jurisdiction under Sec.100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of the Courts below cannot be interfered. No substantial questions of law involved in these Second Appeals and these Second Appeals are liable to be dismissed. 25. When the findings of the Courts below is based on evidence and materials on record, exercising jurisdiction under Sec.100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of the Courts below cannot be interfered. No substantial questions of law involved in these Second Appeals and these Second Appeals are liable to be dismissed. 25. In the result, common Judgment of the lower Appellate court in A.S.Nos.89/2002 and 90/2002 dated 25.04.2006 on the file of the District Court, Thiruvannamalai (arising out of the Decree and common Judgment in O.S.Nos.126/1997 and 125/1998 dated 28.06.2002 on the file of Sub-Court, Arni) is confirmed and these Second Appeals are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to cots.