Judgment Arun Mishra,J. ( 1. ) The appeal has been preferred as against the judgment and decree dated 3.2.2007 passed by Shri Gulab Sharma,District Judge,Harda in civil suit no.4-A/05 decreeing the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent Radheshyam directing the refund of consideration of Rs.7 lacs along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit. ( 2. ) The plaintiff averred that an oral agreement to sale was entered into by plaintiff Radheshyam with defendant Smt. Shanti Rathore. She is the widow and plaintiff used to help her. In the year 2002 the defendant expressed the desire to sell part of land owned by her at Mahendragaon. She wanted to sell 10 acres of agricultural land. The total consideration fixed was Rs.11,50,000/-. ( 3. ) The oral agreement was entered into on 26.5.2002. A sum of Rs.1,00,001/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The payment was made at village Mahendragaon. It was also agreed that amount was to be paid in installments and sum of Rs.7 lacs was paid in installments by 11.6.2002. Thus, total sum paid was Rs.8,00,001/-. On 11.6.2002 for satisfaction of plaintiff receipt was executed by defendant no.l,Smt. Shanti Rathore admitting that she had entered into an agreement for a sum of Rs.11 lacs 50 thousand and also admitted payment of Rs.7 lacs. On 15.7.2002 when plaintiff visited the defendant no. 1 along with sum of Rs.2,75,000/- and asked her to execute the sale-deed, sum of Rs.75,000/- was to be paid at Harda at the time of registration of sale-deed. She stated that she did not desire to sell the land to plaintiff. Ultimately the sale-deed was not executed. Consequently, suit was filed for specific performance. ( 4. ) The defendant Smt. Shanti Rathore in the written statement denied the plaints averments contending that she had not received any consideration of Rs.1 lac or Rs.7 lacs at any point of time. She has not executed any of the receipt evincing the payment of Rs.7 lacs. The said amount was never paid. The plaintiff wanted to usurp the valuable land of defendant. He had prepared the forged document. In the so called receipt the land was not mentioned nor its boundaries were mentioned. Plaintiff never turned up to pay the remaining consideration, there was no question of his visiting the defendant as no agreement had been entered into. ( 5. The plaintiff wanted to usurp the valuable land of defendant. He had prepared the forged document. In the so called receipt the land was not mentioned nor its boundaries were mentioned. Plaintiff never turned up to pay the remaining consideration, there was no question of his visiting the defendant as no agreement had been entered into. ( 5. ) The trial court by the impugned judgment and decree has held that agreement was entered into for a sum of Rs.1 1,50,000/-. While deciding issue no.2 it has been held that earnest money of Rs.1 lac was paid and sum of Rs.7 lacs was also paid. The plaintiff was willing to perform his part of contract, however, while granting the relief refund of sum of Rs.7 lacs has been ordered along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the suit. Aggrieved thereby the instant appeal has been preferred. ( 6. ) Shri J.K.Verma,learned counsel for appellant-defendant,has submitted that document (Ex.P.3) is ex-facie forged document. There are certain over-writings and interpolations made in the same. Earlier a different year was written. By overwriting on the same word "202" was mentioned instead of the year 2002. There is overwriting in the figure of Rs.11,50,000/- as well as in the word also in the document. There is over writing in several lines of the document. Initially document was written as apparent from the document itself with respect to transaction of cultivating the land on the basis of crop sharing. The document commences with the words"Gehu four Bora,khasra no.49".Thereafter overwriting and correction which have been made is apparent that document has been manufactured to evince payment of Rs.7 lacs. The word "11.6.202" has been mentioned not at one place but at two places. The witnesses Sugnabai and Ramdas have stated that payment was made in their presence whereas plaintiff has stated that he had not made payment on the date 11.6.2002 the said receipt was executed. The receipt was executed in the presence of aforesaid witnesses Plaintiff has stated that payment was made earlier in two installments. Appellants counsel has also submitted that there was no whisper as to the said receipt (Ex.P.3), in the notice which was issued. The specimen writing of defendant(Ex.P.1) defers from the document (Ex.P.3). There was no cogent evidence adduced by the plaintiff so as to prove that document (Ex.P.3) was executed by defendant no.1. Appellants counsel has also submitted that there was no whisper as to the said receipt (Ex.P.3), in the notice which was issued. The specimen writing of defendant(Ex.P.1) defers from the document (Ex.P.3). There was no cogent evidence adduced by the plaintiff so as to prove that document (Ex.P.3) was executed by defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 is the widow. Plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that consideration of Rs.8 lacs was advanced. The trial court has held that earnest money of Rs.1 lac was not paid, as refund has not been ordered, thus, there was no question of payment of further sum of Rs.7 lacs. The decree for refund of Rs.7 lacs could not have been passed in the facts and circumstances of the case as the said amount was never paid nor the receipt evincing the payment was ever executed by the defendant Shantibai Rathore. ( 7. ) Shri A. D. Mishra,learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff, has submitted that refund of Rs.7 lacs has been rightly ordered as that is evinced by the receipt (Ex.P.3). On comparison of signature on Ex.P.3 and specimen writing (Ex.D. 1) of defendant the trial court has rightly held that document (Ex.P.3) was executed by defendant Shanti Rathore. There are no material contradictions. Prayer was made to appoint an expert for comparison of the signature which prayer was not allowed by the trial court. ( 8. ) The main question for consideration is whether the agreement for sale of 10 acres of land was entered into between the parties. Admittedly, there is no document of entering into an agreement executed on 26.5.2002, the date on which the said agreement is said to have been entered into and sum of Rs.1,00,001/- was paid by way of earnest money. In the notice which was given by the plaintiff (Ex.P.4) it was not mentioned that any receipt evincing the payment of Rs.7 lacs was executed by defendant no.1 on 11.6.2002. Since the initial transaction was oral one, in case receipt was in existence as on the date of serving of notice, this fact should have been mentioned in the notice. Conspicuously the said fact is absent. ( 9. ) The plaintiff Radheshyam has stated that he had entered into an oral agreement for sale with defendant no. 1 for a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- on 26.5.2002 and on 26.5.2002 earnest money of Rs.l,00,001/- was paid at Mahendragaon. Conspicuously the said fact is absent. ( 9. ) The plaintiff Radheshyam has stated that he had entered into an oral agreement for sale with defendant no. 1 for a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- on 26.5.2002 and on 26.5.2002 earnest money of Rs.l,00,001/- was paid at Mahendragaon. Remaining amount was to be paid in two installments. Whenever he could arrange the money, he used to pay to defendant Shantibai,thus, he paid additional sum of Rs.7 lacs by 11.6.2002 and a sum of Rs.8 lacs stood paid to defendant no.1. When plaintiff asked to enter into an agreement it was assured by defendant Shantibai that they were having good relations and assured him of executing the sale-deed as and when remaining amount was paid by him. On being insisted by the plaintiff the defendant Shantibai on 11.6.2002 gave a receipt of payment of Rs.7 lacs in the presence of the witnesses. Due to good relationship he believed the version of Shantibai. When on 15.7.2002 he visited defendant Shantibai with sum of Rs.2,75,000/- she declined to execute the sale deed and demanded the full money. She did not execute sale-deed and started frivolous proceedings against the plaintiff, as such a notice was served through counsel,inspite of that sale- deed was not executed. In the cross-examination he has stated that it was not clearly mentioned what was the boundary 10 acres of agricultural land. With respect to the document (Ex.P.3), so called receipt he has admitted that document (Ex.P.3) commenced from the words "Four bags of wheat" which were sent by him to Shantibai as he had obtained the land on crop sharing basis, in lieu thereof he had sent the bags. He has stated that amount was paid of Rs.7 lacs in two installments. He had paid sum of Rs.4 lacs within a period of one month and paid Rs.3 lacs within a period of 15 days. Thus, the amount of Rs.8 lacs had already been received by defendant Shantibai before document (Ex.P.3) was reduced in writing. The witnesses had admitted that in receipt (Ex.P.3) Rs.7 lacs was mentioned not Rs.8 lacs. It was also put that Ex.P.3 was not written by Shantibai. He has also admitted in receipt (Ex.P.3) that the year "2002" was not mentioned, in that place year "202" was mentioned by making overwriting at two places. The witnesses had admitted that in receipt (Ex.P.3) Rs.7 lacs was mentioned not Rs.8 lacs. It was also put that Ex.P.3 was not written by Shantibai. He has also admitted in receipt (Ex.P.3) that the year "2002" was not mentioned, in that place year "202" was mentioned by making overwriting at two places. He has also admitted that he has not mentioned in the notice the execution of receipt (Ex.P.3) by defendant. He has also denied the suggestion that receipt has been manufactured after service of notice. He has also stated that defendant had lodged the report to the police earlier against him but said report was incorrect and fraudulent. He could not state whether any reply to the notice was. sent by the defendant to his counsel. ( 10. ) Ramdas(PW-3),the witness of plaintiff Radheshyam has stated that sum of Rs.7 lacs was paid in his presence to Shantibai at village Mahendragaon. On the said very date Shantibai had written a receipt (Ex.P.3) dated 11.6.2002 which was signed by Shantibai and by the witnesses and Sugnabai. It is not the plaintiffs case that sum was paid as on the date of execution of receipt (Ex.P.3), thus, the witness falsifies the version of plaintiff and completely renders the version of payment itself unworthy of credence. Plaintiff (PW-1) has stated that amount stood paid before execution of receipt (Ex.P.3) whereas his witness Ramdas(PW- 3) in para-3 has stated that amount was paid to Shantibai in her house of which a letter signed by her was given. Thus, there is material contradiction. The plaintiff has not been able to establish that sum of Rs.7 lacs was in fact paid. Plaintiff has not stated the date of payment of Rs.7 lacs and why he did not obtain the receipt when he was making the payment of huge consideration such as amount of Rs.4 lacs and Rs.3 lacs in two installments. ( 11. ) When we consider the statement of Sugnabai(PW-4), she has also stated in para 3 that at Mahendragaon sum of Rs.7 lacs was paid in her presence by Radheshyam to Shantibai which is not the case of even the plaintiff. Plaintiff has stated that amount was paid earlier and receipt was executed later on. Plaintiff has come up with the case in the notice also it was mentioned that amount of Rs.7 lacs was paid in installments. Plaintiff has stated that amount was paid earlier and receipt was executed later on. Plaintiff has come up with the case in the notice also it was mentioned that amount of Rs.7 lacs was paid in installments. In the plaint also it was mentioned that amount of Rs.7 lacs was paid in two installments whereas the aforesaid witnesses examined by the plaintiff have stated that the entire amount of Rs.7 lacs was paid in their presence in lump-sum. Plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that sum of Rs.7 lacs was paid. Plaintiff has also failed to prove that it was paid in installments or in lump-sum. As there are material contradictions in the version of plaintiff and witnesses examined by him as to the payment of consideration, in our opinion, payment of consideration of Rs.7 lacs has not been established. Sugnabai(PW-4) was also unable to state what was written in the document (Ex.P.3) and currency of how much denominations was handed over. Thus, we hold that sum of Rs.7 lacs was not paid to the defendant. The very execution of document in the presence of Ramdas(PW-3) and Sugnabai(PW-4) also becomes doubtful. They are not reliable witnesses. ( 12. ) When we consider the statement of Shobharam(PW-2), he has stated that when he had gone to the house of Shantibai along with Radheshyam,defendant Shantibai had retained the sum of Rs.2,75,000/- and thereafter refused to execute sale-deed. It is not the case of plaintiff that he had paid sum of Rs.2,75,000/-, thus, very visit of witness Shobharam along with Radheshyam to make the payment Rs.2,75,000/- falls down. The plaintiff has not been able to establish by satisfactory evidence that he had visited defendant no. 1 with sum of Rs.2,75,000/-. The witness has exceeded the brief while stating that Shantibai had received a further sum of Rs.2,75,000/-which is not the case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint. In the plaint the plaintiff has come up with the case that total sum of Rs.8 lacs was paid not Rs.10,75,000/-. If the statement of Shobharam is relied upon then plaintiff would have made the advance payment of Rs.10,75,000/- which is not even the case set up by the plaintiff. ( 13. In the plaint the plaintiff has come up with the case that total sum of Rs.8 lacs was paid not Rs.10,75,000/-. If the statement of Shobharam is relied upon then plaintiff would have made the advance payment of Rs.10,75,000/- which is not even the case set up by the plaintiff. ( 13. ) The execution of agreement has not been established, there was no question of payment of sum of Rs.7 lacs in installments or in lump-sum, the payment of which has not been established. The trial court has not passed decree for a sum of Rs.1 lac which is stated to be paid as earnest money, the payment of which has not been established by adducing satisfactory evidence. Plaintiff himself has admitted that he had sent four bags of wheat to Shantibai. The receipt(Ex.P.3) had commenced from that. There was no occasion whatsoever to combine the two transactions, that does not make any sense in the document. The plaintiff Radheshyam has not stated that amount of Rs.1 lac was paid in the presence of witness Shobharam. The witness Shobharam has also not been found reliable with respect to payment of sum of Rs.2,75,000/-, later on as that is not even the case of plaintiff,thus, the presence of Shobharam and entering into of the very "agreement has not been established by the plaintiff by adducing satisfactory evidence. The relations of the parties were strained, it has been admitted that previously a criminal case was tried against the plaintiff by the defendant. There were proceedings u/Ss 107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C. also. ( 14. ) The receipt (Ex.P.3) has been relied upon by the trial court. It reads thus :- [underline applied by us] When we read the aforesaid document (Ex.P.3). there is overwriting at the places underlined by us, it starts from word 4 ffn" then there is again overwriting in the crucial numeral 11 and again there is overwriting in words 11. There is again overwriting in the words "Sauda"mentioned in fourth line and again in fourth line the year initially was different and later on it has been mentioned 11.6.202. It has not been mentioned to be the year "11.6.2002". On close scrutiny of the document with magnifying glass it is clear that some other year was mentioned beneath numeral "202". Again there is overwriting in the last line in the words "w cTRsr tml". It has not been mentioned to be the year "11.6.2002". On close scrutiny of the document with magnifying glass it is clear that some other year was mentioned beneath numeral "202". Again there is overwriting in the last line in the words "w cTRsr tml". There is overwriting on several words in the same line. Again below the signature of Shantibai Rathore the year has been changed to "202" which cannot be the year, it does not make out any sense. If it means to be year "2002", it should have been mentioned "11.6.2002" as the defendant was a literate and was a Teacher at the relevant time, she would not have committed said blunder. Similarly the statements of witnesses Suganbai and Ramdas are contradictory to the plaintiffs case as to the date of payment of the amount, it is not necessary to compare receipt (Ex.P.3) which on record by the specimen writing. The plaintiff has not been able to prove that he had made the payment of Rs.7 lacs and has also failed to prove that the agreement to sell was entered into. So as to deal with the arguments, when we compare the specimen writing obtained by the court as Ex.D.J,with specimen, the writing is quite different on Ex.P.3. We make it clear that we are not an expert. We have undertaken aforesaid exercise so as to meet rival submission and to prima facie satisfy ourselves as to finding recorded by trial court. Prima facie it appears that both the writings are quite different. ( 15. ) Considering the aforesaid fact that there was strained relations. There was no reason due to strained relationship to rely upon the defendant for entering into the oral agreement to sell for the purpose of sale of property for consideration of Rs.11,50,000/-. It can also not be ignored that defendant has stated that dispute arose with respect to payment of amount when land was given for cultivation on crop sharing basis and plaintiff has admitted that he had sent four bags of wheat as mentioned in the receipt (Ex.P.3). There are overwriting and manipulations in. the document (Ex.P.3). Thus, document (Ex.P.3) cannot be said to be reliable at all. There are material alterations in the same and it has not been established by adducing satisfactory evidence that it has been executed by the defendant Shantibai Rathore. ( 16. There are overwriting and manipulations in. the document (Ex.P.3). Thus, document (Ex.P.3) cannot be said to be reliable at all. There are material alterations in the same and it has not been established by adducing satisfactory evidence that it has been executed by the defendant Shantibai Rathore. ( 16. ) Now we come to the submission that expert was not appointed. In the instant case, considering the oral evidence on record expert evidence would not have tilted the balance at all in favour of the plaintiff. There are so many material contradictions in the plaintiffs version and that of his witnesses, moreover document (Ex.P.3) is so much manipulated one and its due execution by defendant has also not been proved, it could not have been acted upon and relied upon at all. Thus, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court. ( 17. ) Resultantly,the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree is set aside. The cost of appeal to be borne by the respondent. Appeal allowed.