Judgment :- 1. This First Appeal (Appeal Suit) arises out of the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2007 made in O.S.No.5 of 2006 on the file of the District Court, Nilgiris at Udagamandalam. 2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows: (i) The plaintiff is the first defendant's neighbour and also his former employer. The plaintiff, who helped the first defendant out financially to acquire the property and the first defendant has agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff. (ii) On 07.04.2005, the first defendant agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for Rs.8,00,000/- and received Rs.6,00,000/- as an advance from the plaintiff and promised to execute the sale deed within six months from the date of agreement. Since the plaintiff had paid the major portion of the sale consideration, the first defendant also handed over the original documents. Due to the urgency of the first defendant, the sale agreement was executed on a white paper. (iii) On 01.06.2005, the first defendant requested the plaintiff for the balance sale consideration and he also promised to hand over the possession on or before 31.12.2005. The plaintiff believed the first defendant and paid him the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and the first defendant had given a stamped receipt for the said amount that he received from the plaintiff on 01.06.2005 in full settlement of the full sale consideration. Thereafter, the first defendant left ostensibly for his village, leaving his wife in the premises and promising to return shortly. (iv) To the utter shock of the plaintiff, he discovered that the first defendant has left for Singapore, where he is working in a hotel/restaurant. The first defendant has cheated the plaintiff with an intention of leaving the country and for obtaining funds, he has played the drama of coming back and handing over possession of the property and registering the document. The first defendant's wife has also been cleverly concealing this fact. (v) The plaintiff was afraid that the suit property should not be sold to any third person as it abuts the plaintiff's property and hence he agreed to buy the same. What the first defendant has committed is criminal breach of promise and breach of trust. The first defendant's wife has also been cleverly concealing this fact. (v) The plaintiff was afraid that the suit property should not be sold to any third person as it abuts the plaintiff's property and hence he agreed to buy the same. What the first defendant has committed is criminal breach of promise and breach of trust. So the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 04.01.2006 to both Singapore and Kattabettu addresses, calling upon the first defendant to come here to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The first defendant evaded both the notices, since the Singapore cover was returned as "no such name" and the Kattabettu cover was returned as "unclaimed". (vi) After filing the suit, the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant, through a power of attorney given to his wife, the third defendant has executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property to the second defendant, who is none other than her brother, under the registered sale deed dated 01.02.2006. This sale deed was engineered by the first defendant with the help of his brother-in-law and his wife, with full knowledge of the legal notice dated 04.01.2006. The second defendant as a purchaser with full knowledge of the sale agreement, is bound to sell the suit property to the plaintiff under Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act. Hence the second and third defendant were impleaded as parties to the suit. The plaintiff also filed a suit in O.S.No.19/2006 before the Sub-Court, Ootacamund, to restrain the defendants 2 and 3 from making any further alienation. Hence the plaintiff come forward with the suit for specific performance and prayed for a decree. 3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the first defendant are as follows: (i) It is true that this defendant is presently a neighbour and former employee of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff come forward with the suit for specific performance and prayed for a decree. 3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the first defendant are as follows: (i) It is true that this defendant is presently a neighbour and former employee of the plaintiff. In the year 1988, when this defendant was working in Wellington Tea Estate at Coonoor, the plaintiff had requested this defendant to purchase an estate and accordingly an extent of 24 acres of Tea Garden at Kannerimukku, Kotagiri was purchased and however, the plaintiff has been persistently requesting this defendant to joint with him to look after the Tea Garden in view of the plaintiff's previous experience in Tea field and though initially this defendant was not willing to joint the plaintiff, but subsequently he joined with the plaintiff. Out of his own earnings, this defendant had purchased an extent of 0.17 ½ acres of land in R.S.No.499/1 and 0.07 ½ acres in R.S.No.498 at Naduhatty Village in the year 1990. Thereafter, this defendant constructed a residential building in Rs.No.499/1 being the suit property. After the said construction, this defendant shifted his residence to the new house in the year 1992. This defendant had availed loan from LIC for the purpose of constructing the building and spent almost Rs.1,00,000/- to complete the construction in the year 1991-1992. So the allegation that the plaintiff had helped this defendant financially to build the house and that this defendant agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff are all figment of imaginations. The plaintiff had actually purchased the site adjoining the property purchased in the year 1993 by this defendant, who helped the plaintiff to acquire the site measuring an extent of 0.50 acres in the said R.S.No.499/1 and the plaintiff had constructed a residential building there in the year 1995. Since the plaintiff was his employer, this defendant out of gratitude allowed the plaintiff to use his road till the plaintiff makes his own arrangements. (ii) At no point of time, this defendant had neither entered into any agreement to convey the suit property nor received any advance sale consideration from the plaintiff. There was no sale agreement on 07.04.2005 for Rs.8,00,000/- and he never received Rs.6,00,000/- and he never agreed to execute the sale deed within six months from 07.04.2005. (ii) At no point of time, this defendant had neither entered into any agreement to convey the suit property nor received any advance sale consideration from the plaintiff. There was no sale agreement on 07.04.2005 for Rs.8,00,000/- and he never received Rs.6,00,000/- and he never agreed to execute the sale deed within six months from 07.04.2005. In or about January/February 2001, this defendant's mother was unwell and for her treatment, this defendant required substantial funds and has been looking for finance. Since the plaintiff being his former employer, he had represented that he knows somebody in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Mettupalayam and he can arrange a loan from the said Bank in favour of this defendant for which, he had obtained this defendant's signatures in three blank white papers and Rs.10/- stamp paper and a revenue stamp affixed blank papers. Next day, the plaintiff returned from Mettupalayam and represented to this defendant that the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank refused to advance the loan and however the plaintiff will give Rs.2,00,000/- as loan and this defendant should pay the said amount in due course. The plaintiff had made an arrangements to pay a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and paid the same to this defendant on 26.02.2001 and the plaintiff had retained with him the said three blank white papers and Rs.10/- stamp paper and the revenue stamp affixed white papers duly signed by this defendant. This defendant with the bona-fide believed that the plaintiff being his employer did not bother much about the said signed papers which were retained by the plaintiff. (iii) However, this defendant has repaid Rs.2,65,000/- on various nine occasions. This defendant had settled the entire principal amount apart from Rs.65,000/- towards interest to the plaintiff and the balance amount if any, payable is only a minor amount being the difference in interest amount. Since the plaintiff was paying unremunerative salary, this defendant was looking for a job at Singapore. This defendant also borrowed money from one Sundara Vinayagam to meet the expenses in connection with his treatment for shoulder pain and since this defendant could not repay the said amount and also in view of the said Sundara Vinayagam's family had pressed for the repayment, this defendant had no other alternative but to offer the suit property to his family and for a matter of fact, a sale agreement was also entered into on 09.02.2005. When this defendant was confirmed with a job at Singapore, this defendant had carried all the important documents including the original sale deed and revenue records with him to Singapore to show the documents to Sundara Vinayagam, who is in Singapore. On perusal of the said documents and at the instructions of the said Sundara Vinayagam, this defendant had sent the original sale deed, chitta extract and encumbrance certificate to his wife to the Kattabettu address with instructions to hand over the said documents to one Palaniraja, the brother of Sundara Vinayagam for preparing the sale deed. However, the plaintiff had high handedly received the cover containing the documents sent by this defendant to his wife from the postman on the promise that the same will be handed over to her. However, this defendant retained the said cover and taken away all the original documents and now falsely claiming that this defendant had handed over the said documents to the plaintiff. This defendant's wife had already preferred necessary complaint before the postal authorities for the non-receipt of the said cover. At no point of time, this defendant had ever entrusted any documents and revenue records to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had cooked up, fabricated as the alleged sale agreement as if this defendant had agreed to convey the suit property and that this defendant received the alleged sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as an advance. (iv) While this defendant was working with the plaintiff, the plaintiff was in the habit of getting signatures on white blank paper at the time of disbursement of salary. When this defendant decided to seek employment at Singapore, the plaintiff has been behaving indifferently as the plaintiff does not want to loose a hard and loyal worker and however the moment, this defendant took the employment at Singapore, the plaintiff with fraudulent intention to wreck vengeance against this defendant and taking advantage of the available blank papers and also by fraudulently receiving the postal cover containing the original documents, has cunningly fabricated the documents. This defendant had already conveyed the suit property in favour of Palaniraja, the brother of the said Sundara Vinayagam through his wife, being the power agent under the registered sale deed dated 01.02.2006. This defendant had already conveyed the suit property in favour of Palaniraja, the brother of the said Sundara Vinayagam through his wife, being the power agent under the registered sale deed dated 01.02.2006. On several occasions, it was the plaintiff who used to receive the postal covers as the main gate is very much visible from the plaintiff's house and taking advantage of the same, the plaintiff received the cover, opened and found the original document, had fraudulently retained with him and attempted to give a different picture as if this defendant had entrusted the original documents. This defendant had never issued any receipt for Rs.2,00,000/- on 01.06.2005. (v) On the alleged date of execution of sale agreement dated 07.04.2005, this defendant was actually taking physiotherapy treatment at Aranthangi near Thanjavur. On 01.06.2005, he was at Aranthangi and returned to Kattabettu on 02.06.2005. This defendant pledged his jewelleries in the Central Bank of India, Kattabettu on 02.06.2005 and withdrawn the amount from the Bank on 07.06.2005 and also purchased T.V.S.50 Motor Cycle on 03.06.2005 on instalment basis. On 11.04.2005, this defendant's wife had already pledged the jewelleries in the Central Co-operative Bank, Kattabettu. If this defendant had received substantial amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as alleged by the plaintiff, there is no necessity for this defendant to pledge the jewelleries in the Bank. The plaintiff was very much aware of this defendant's departure to Singapore. Since this defendant was at Singapore, there is no necessity to send the legal notice to his Kattabettu address and this defendant had never received any such notice. (vi) It is strange to note that the plaintiff has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- without obtaining the registered sale deed. The plaintiff is doing illegal money lending business in and around Kotagiri including advancing loan to close friends and only to earn interest, the plaintiff had advanced the said sum of Rs.2,00,000/- during the year 2001 to this defendant. The plaintiff is doing illegal money lending business in and around Kotagiri including advancing loan to close friends and only to earn interest, the plaintiff had advanced the said sum of Rs.2,00,000/- during the year 2001 to this defendant. The plaintiff has a consistent feeling that this defendant is living within the campus of his residence which is hindrance for the plaintiff in running the cottage business wherein several foreigners and outsiders used to visit and the plaintiff is trying his level best to some how chase this defendant out of the suit property and as such he had cunningly fabricated and cooked up the alleged sale agreement with an illegal intention to knock away the property. (vii) No cause of action for the suit. The total value of the suit property as on the alleged date of agreement will be less than Rs.3,00,000/- and however, the plaintiff had abnormally inflated the rate to Rs.8,00,000/-. Hence he prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 4. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the second defendant, adopted by the third defendant are as follows: (i) This defendant is not aware of the alleged sale agreement said to have been executed by the first defendant and however to the knowledge of this defendant, no such agreement was executed by the first defendant. (ii) This defendant had purchased the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 01.02.2006. Only to the purpose of execution of the sale deed in favour of this defendant, the first defendant had sent all the original documents from Singapore through post and however, the plaintiff is having received the said documents stealthily and now claiming that the first defendant had handed over the said original deed at the time of alleged execution of the sale agreement. This defendant is a bona-fide purchaser for valid consideration. This defendant's brother K.Sundara Vinayagam paid the consideration at Singapore to the first defendant, who is also in Singapore. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file a suit against this defendant. Hence he prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 5. This defendant is a bona-fide purchaser for valid consideration. This defendant's brother K.Sundara Vinayagam paid the consideration at Singapore to the first defendant, who is also in Singapore. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file a suit against this defendant. Hence he prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 5. The trial Court, after considering the averments both in the plaint and the written statement and arguments of both the counsel, framed six issues and considering the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and D.W.1 to D.W.3 and documentary evidence of Exs.A1 to A32, Exs.B1 to B20 and Ex.X1 series and Exs.C1 and C2, dismissed the suit, against which, the appellant/plaintiff has come forward with this First Appeal. 6. Even though the respondents/defendants were served with notice, no one represented on behalf of them. 7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, the following points for determination are framed: 1. Whether the trial Court is correct in held that Ex.A1 is a fabricated document? 2. Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief of specific performance? 3. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are sustainable? 4. To what relief, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to? 8. Point No.1 (i) The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that both the appellant/plaintiff and the first respondent/first defendant are neighbours. The third respondent/third defendant is the wife of the first respondent/first defendant. The second respondent/second defendant is the brother-in-law of the first respondent/first defendant and brother of the third respondent/third defendant. The title of the suit property is not disputed. (ii) The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that the first respondent/first defendant herein was in dire need of money. So he borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the appellant/plaintiff on 07.04.2005 and agreed to sell the suit property for Rs.8,00,000/-and executed the sale agreement under Ex.A1 and six months time was granted for the execution of the sale deed. On 01.06.2005, the first respondent/first defendant received the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- from the appellant/plaintiff, which was marked as Ex.A7. So the entire sale consideration was received by the first respondent/first defendant. There was an employer-employee relationship between both the appellant/plaintiff and the first respondent/first defendant. On 01.06.2005, the first respondent/first defendant received the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- from the appellant/plaintiff, which was marked as Ex.A7. So the entire sale consideration was received by the first respondent/first defendant. There was an employer-employee relationship between both the appellant/plaintiff and the first respondent/first defendant. At the time of execution of Ex.A1, the first respondent/first defendant handed over all the original title deeds and other documents such as Encumbrance Certificate, chitta extract and approved building plan to the appellant/plaintiff. Since the first respondent/first defendant has without intimated the appellant/plaintiff, he left for Singapore for his avocation and thereafter, difference of opinion arose between both the parties. Hence the appellant/plaintiff issued a notice. (iii) The first respondent/first defendant raised a plea that the title deeds were sent by registered post by him to the third respondent/third defendant, who is his wife and the said postal cover was received by the appellant/plaintiff's daughter and that was retained by the appellant/plaintiff for the purpose. Since the first respondent/first defendant disputed the genuinety of Ex.A1, the burden is upon the appellant/plaintiff to prove that Ex.A1 is true and genuine document. (iv) Admittedly, Ex.A1 was written in white paper, not in stamp paper and it was a typed matter. But at the time of trial, stamp duty penalty was collected. In Ex.A1, signatures of both the appellant/plaintiff and the first respondent/first defendant were found place. The defence of the first respondent/first defendant is that Ex.A1-sale agreement was concocted. While the first respondent/first defendant need financial help, at that time, the appellant/plaintiff obtained his signatures from blank papers, stamp papers and blank promissory notes for assisting him to obtain a loan from Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Mettupalayam in the year January/February 2001. A very next day, he informed to the first respondent/first defendant that Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank was not willing to advance a loan. But the appellant/plaintiff has not handed over the papers to him and he used those signed blank papers, fabricated and concocted Exs.A1 and A7. (v) The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that it is a well known practice that while applying loan at Bank, each and every Bank has its own printed formats for lending loan to its customers. But the appellant/plaintiff has not handed over the papers to him and he used those signed blank papers, fabricated and concocted Exs.A1 and A7. (v) The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that it is a well known practice that while applying loan at Bank, each and every Bank has its own printed formats for lending loan to its customers. So the theory that the appellant/plaintiff herein has obtained a signature in white papers to assist the first respondent/first defendant for obtaining a loan from Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank is only a cock and bull story. The appellant/plaintiff has made the grounds:4,5 and 8 in the appeal are only on this regard. It is true that each and every nationalised and scheduled Banks are their own printed formats for lending loans to customers. So the defence raised by the first respondent/first defendant that the signature obtained by the appellant/plaintiff for assisting to obtain loan from Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank was utilised for fabricating of Ex.A1 is unacceptable one. (vi) The first respondent/first defendant is a worldly wise person. As per the evidence, he was already worked in Wellington Tea Estate at Coonoor and thereafter, the appellant/plaintiff joined with him. So, it is unbelievable that the appellant/plaintiff has got signatures from him in three blank white papers, Rs.10/- stamp paper and a revenue stamp affixed blank paper for arranging a loan from Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Mettupalayam. So the defence raised by the first respondent/first defendant that the papers, where he put his signatures were used for fabricating Ex.A1 by the appellant/plaintiff, is unacceptable. (vii) It is appropriate to consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff that the persons of full age and understanding, who subscribe their signatures to a document, cannot be heard to say that they had affixed the signatures on blank papers or that they signed without appraising themselves about the recitals. To substantiate the above arguments, he relied upon the decision reported in 2008(5) CTC 690 (Chokkammal and 3 others v. K.Balraj), in para-7, it reads as follows: "7. As a measure of sound reasoning, it could be stated that the persons of full age and understanding who subscribe their signatures to a document, cannot be heard to say that they had affixed the signatures on blank papers or that they signed without appraising themselves about the recitals. As a measure of sound reasoning, it could be stated that the persons of full age and understanding who subscribe their signatures to a document, cannot be heard to say that they had affixed the signatures on blank papers or that they signed without appraising themselves about the recitals. If they had been so imprudent to affix the signatures in such a fashion, they have to take the consequence for such imprudence. In this case, there is nothing to suspect that the document could have been brought about under vitiating circumstances. The Trial Court has found that on a wholesale consideration of evidence that Ex.A3 was true and it has also considered the evidence of witnesses to the transaction viz. the scribe under Ex.A1 and also one of the witnesses Chellappa, who is PW2. The said Chellappa is the witness in Ex.A3. I, therefore, confirm the finding recorded by the Trial Court that Ex.A1 and A3 are true and the defendants have obligated themselves under this document to execute the sale in favour of the plaintiff." He submitted that the first respondent/first defendant is a worldly wise person, who subscribe his signature to a document, cannot be heard to say that he had affixed the signatures on blank papers or that he signed without appraising himself about the recitals. For the said reason, he also relied upon the decision reported in 1993 (II) MLJ 144 (Kumarasamy and others v. S.K.John(died) and others), in paragraphs-5 and 6, it read as follows: "5. Even the appellants 1 and 2 in their pleadings do not deny their thumb impression and signature in Ex.A1 agreement. They would only say that in connection with the sale of another piece of land measuring 40 cents, they were constrained to affix their signature and thumb impression on a number of papers and the first respondent has fabricated Ex.A1 agreement by utilising one such paper. But in the witness box, the first appellant as D.W.1 merely states that he sold 40 cents of land to the first respondent and the sale deed was registered at the Registrar's Office at Poonamallee. He never entered into any agreement with the first respondent. This witness nowhere deposes that he had signed on a number of sheets along with the second appellant and handed them over to the first respondent. He never entered into any agreement with the first respondent. This witness nowhere deposes that he had signed on a number of sheets along with the second appellant and handed them over to the first respondent. Besides there is practically no evidence to substantiate the plea of the appellants that there was any exercise of fraud, or misrepresentation on the part of the first respondent in getting Ex.A-1 agreement executed. The onus is on the appellants 1 and 2 to explain how their signatures are found in Ex.A-1. The explanation offered by them is not proved to be true. Both the appellants are worldly wise though they are not educated. Both are employed. D.W.1 admits that he is a former employee of vehicle department. The second appellant is an employee of Madras Electricity System. So the claim of the appellants that first respondent played fraud on them and obtained their signature and thumb impression on blank papers representing that they were required for the purpose of sale of another piece of 40 cents land cannot be accepted. 6. D.W.1 further states that he entered into Ex.B.5 agreement with the third appellant on 10.09.1992 to sell the suit property to him. Though the averments in the written statement are to the effect the pursuant to Ex.B-5 agreement, he delivered possession of the suit property to the third appellant and handed over the original title deeds, in the witness box he is conspicuously silent on this aspect. In the cross-examination, it was elicited from him that he handed over the title deeds to the third appellant as per the recital in Ex.B-5. Even in his chief examination he merely states that the advance was paid by the third appellant to his wife. He does not know what was the amount paid as advance. Though he claims to have handed over three prior title deeds and three patta books to the third appellant pursuant to the sale agreement, he has not chosen to say what are those documents. He does not even say that the title deeds handed over by him to the third appellant are Exs.B-1 to B-4. In cross-examination he admits that he does not know that was the price under which he undertook to sell the lands. He does not know what was the rate per cent under Ex.B-5. He does not even say that the title deeds handed over by him to the third appellant are Exs.B-1 to B-4. In cross-examination he admits that he does not know that was the price under which he undertook to sell the lands. He does not know what was the rate per cent under Ex.B-5. This would indicate that he was merely a tool in the hands of the third appellant and he does not know anything about Ex.B-5 agreement." Considering the above citations along with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, both the parties are having cordial relationship. As per the averment in the plaint, because of the dire need of money, the first respondent/first defendant approached the appellant/plaintiff and he agreed to sell the property for Rs.8,00,000/-, immediately, they written Ex.A1. Considering their relationship and the money transaction between themselves under Ex.B1, I am of the view that the execution of alleged Ex.A1 is suspicious. Furthermore, in Ex.A1, it was not mentioned that who prepared the document (i.e.) Ex.A1 and who typed the document and the said portions were not mentioned. (viii) Admittedly, both the appellant/plaintiff and the first respondent/first defendant are having money transaction. Ex.B1 is the plaintiff's loan disbursement receipt to the first defendant, which was marked by the first respondent/first defendant to show that he has borrowed money on 22.02.2001. In that it was stated that "Net payable would be Rs.1,60,000/- and the amount payable upto October 2004 was mentioned and principal and interest were mentioned as Rs.1,97,562/- for the total outstanding as on 26.10.2004". So it shows that there was a money transaction between both the appellant/plaintiff and the first respondent/first defendant (ix) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff mainly focussing upon to prove that Ex.A1 is genuine, A.Sagayanathan, a Mechanic, who was one of the attestors, was examined as P.W.2. But the trial Court has not considered his evidence on the ground that P.W.2 has not produced any documents to show that as on date (i.e.) on the date of execution of Ex.A1, he was deputed by his workshop owner to repair the car and handed over to the appellant/plaintiff herein. But admittedly, except reputed dealers, other work shop owners have not maintained any records to show that their mechanics were deputed to some customer's factory or residence or working place for handing over the vehicle to them. But admittedly, except reputed dealers, other work shop owners have not maintained any records to show that their mechanics were deputed to some customer's factory or residence or working place for handing over the vehicle to them. P.W.2 in his cross-examination, has stated that they are having writer record and in that record, they have mentioned that when they have gone for work at outside. He also stated that while perusing that writer record, it shows that on 07.04.2005, he went to P.W.1's house and did repair work. But admittedly, he has not produced the same. Further, P.W.2 in his evidence, stated that he was studied upto fourth standard and he is a car mechanic for past 18 years. There was no connection between himself and the appellant/plaintiff, except this mechanic work. He further stated that for the past 17 years, he did car repair to Ravikumar, the appellant/plaintiff. He has also deposed that he is personally known about the first and the third respondent/ defendant. He denied the suggestion posed to him that he was helping the appellant/plaintiff for concocting the document. But as per Ex.A1, the appellant/plaintiff's son-in-law Lalith Viswakumar is another attestor and he was not examined, since he is close relative to him. (x) P.W.1, the appellant/plaintiff himself stated that Ex.A1 was prepared by him. In his cross-examination, he has stated that on his instruction only, the said sale agreement was prepared. In his cross-examination, he has stated as follows: "TAMIL" But in Ex.A1, there was no endorsement that who was prepared and typed the sale agreement. Admittedly, as per the evidence of P.W.1, there was close relationship between both the parties. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is when the first respondent/first defendant was in dire need of money, he borrowed the amount from the appellant/plaintiff, who negotiated and fixed the sale price and written the document. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the cross-examination of the appellant/plaintiff, wherein he stated that there was no negotiation for purchasing of the property. The first respondent/first defendant alone came with the property document and fixed the sale price for the property. Since the first respondent/first defendant demanded Rs.6,00,000/-, he paid Rs.6,00,000/- and he has given assurance that he paid the balance amount later. The first respondent/first defendant alone came with the property document and fixed the sale price for the property. Since the first respondent/first defendant demanded Rs.6,00,000/-, he paid Rs.6,00,000/- and he has given assurance that he paid the balance amount later. So the relevant portion of the evidence in his cross-examination is necessary and incorporate as follows: "TAMIL" (xi) At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider Encumbrance Certificate under Ex.A6. It was from 01.01.1990 to 20.02.2001 and the Encumbrance Certificate was obtained on 22.02.2001. Usually if a person wants to purchase a property, he ought to have verify the revenue records and encumbrance. As per the case of the appellant/plaintiff, the first respondent/first defendant handed over Ex.A2-the original sale deed, Ex.A3-chitta extract, Ex.A4-chitta extract related to the name of the first respondent/first defendant, Ex.A5-approved plan and Ex.A6-Encumbrance Certificate. Usually an Encumbrance Certificate will be obtained on 10 or 15 days prior to the sale agreement. Admittedly, the sale agreement was alleged to be entered into on 07.04.2005, but the encumbrance certificate was obtained on 21.02.2001. This factum will falsify the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the first respondent/first defendant has handed over the documents only at the time of Ex.A1. It is also pertinent to note that Ex.A4-chitta extract also obtained only on 06.03.1992. So these exibits clearly proved that Ex.A1-sale agreement was not executed on 07.04.2005. (xii) As per the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.X1 series-records produced by Senior Superintendent of Post-Office, Uthagamandalam, it is clearly proved that both the appellant/plaintiff and the first respondent/first defendant's houses are abutting and both are having common gate. Furthermore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff mainly focussing upon the letters dated 01.08.1990, 15.10.2000 and 08.01.2001, which are written by the appellant/plaintiff to the first respondent/first defendant under Exs.B7 to B9 have clearly proved that there was a cordial relationship between both the family. In such circumstances, as per the evidence of P.W.1, he himself admitted that the first respondent/first defendant approached him for financial help and agreed to sell the property for the same is not correct, because in para-4 of the plaint, the appellant/plaintiff specifically stated that the first respondent/first defendant was in urgent need of money to meet out his family expenses in the village. On the same day, the first respondent/first defendant received Rs.6,00,000/- from the appellant/plaintiff as advance sale consideration and he promised to execute the sale deed. To prove that Ex.A1 is true, the appellant/plaintiff also filed Ex.A2-original sale deed that too disputed by the first respondent/first defendant. It is well settled law that mere admission of putting thumb impression or signatures is not an admission of execution. (xiii) P.W.2 in his evidence, fairly conceded that he is a car Mechanic of the appellant/plaintiff and he was repaired the car on the date of Ex.A1, but the document for the same has not been filed before the Court. But while perusing evidence of P.W.2, he does not depose that at the time of execution of Ex.A1, the appellant/plaintiff herein has paid Rs.6,00,000/- to the first respondent/first defendant. So it is appropriate to incorporate the following portion of the evidence of P.W.2: "TAMIL" In such circumstances, I am of the view that the evidence of P.W.2 is not sufficient to prove Ex.A1. (xiv)The appellant/plaintiff herein has not filed any documents to prove that Ex.A1 is true. Even though he filed income tax returns under Ex.A30, it came into existence only after filing of the suit. So the trial Court has not given reliance on Ex.A30-Income tax returns submitted by the appellant/plaintiff. Admittedly, as already stated that in Ex.A1, there was no endorsement that who was prepared and typed Ex.A1. The explanation offered by the appellant/plaintiff is that due to the urgency of the first respondent/first defendant, the said sale agreement under Ex.A1 was written on white paper, is unacceptable one. Considering their relationship, he may very well directed the first respondent/first defendant to purchase the stamp papers and prepared the sale agreement in a stamp paper and obtained a signature from the first respondent and his wife, the third respondent, who was available. But nothing was done. As per Ex.A7, a letter dated 01.06.2005 was addressed to the appellant/plaintiff by the first respondent/first defendant. In the said letter, Ex.A1 was referred. But no reason was assigned that why two signatures of the first respondent/first defendant put in Ex.A7, one is on the stamp and another is on the left hand side of the paper. So it is clearly proved that the appellant/plaintiff herein has obtained a signature from the first respondent/first defendant and that was utilised for the purpose of the sale agreement. So it is clearly proved that the appellant/plaintiff herein has obtained a signature from the first respondent/first defendant and that was utilised for the purpose of the sale agreement. (xv) Furthermore, the appellant/plaintiff herein has not filed any documents to show that how he paid Rs.6,00,000/- and where he got the amount on the date of execution of Ex.A1. He has not produced any evidence regarding the same. As already stated that income tax returns under Ex.A30 is not reliable evidence, since payment of Rs.6,00,000/- was mentioned only after filing of the suit. (xvi) Moreover, it is appropriate to consider Ex.B6-an advertisement of "Misty Heights". As per Ex.B6, the first respondent/first defendant is having guest house named "Misty Heights", Earthfoot Homestay in Tamil Nadu Province, India amidst rolling Tea Plantations. It is an advertisement for Misty Heights, a guest house and he is the owner of the same. That Ex.B6 was corroborated by P.W.1-the appellant/plaintiff. In his evidence, he has stated that he constructed two houses in 2 ½ acres of land. He is having foreign friends and they frequently come and stayed in his guest house. So it is clearly proved that he is doing not only tea estate business, also rented out his guest house to his friends. So he should have clear accounts in respect of the same. But he has not filed any scrap of paper to prove that on the date of execution of Ex.A1, he had cash in his hand. So except his ipsi dixit, none has been shown to prove that on the date of Ex.A1, he possessed Rs.6,00,000/- and paid Rs.6,00,000/- to the first respondent/first defendant. One Subramani was examined as P.W.3, who is P.R.O. in Postal Department, through him Ex.X1 series was marked. But the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 are not sufficient to conclude that Exs.A1 and A7 are true and genuine document. (xvii) The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff mainly focussing upon that the original document under Ex.A2 was produced by him at the time of execution of Ex.A1, so Ex.A1 is true and genuine document. But admittedly, handing over of Exs.A2 to A6 were disputed by the first respondent/first defendant. While he was in Singapore, it is alleged that he sent the documents to his wife and that registered post was received by the daughter of the appellant/plaintiff. But admittedly, handing over of Exs.A2 to A6 were disputed by the first respondent/first defendant. While he was in Singapore, it is alleged that he sent the documents to his wife and that registered post was received by the daughter of the appellant/plaintiff. But subsequently, a complaint was given by his wife, the third respondent/third defendant. Then the registered envelope was handed over to D.W.3-wife, whether it contains album or the document is disputed. The registered envelope sent by the first respondent/first defendant shows that it contains only the documents, but whereas Ex.A31 shows that it contains only album. (xviii) One more clinching circumstance is that if Exs.A2 to A6 were handed over to the appellant/plaintiff at the time of execution of Ex.A1, why Rupa, who is the daughter of P.W.1 was not examined before the Court, to show that she alone received the air mail cover sent by the first respondent/first defendant to his wife, which was handed over to the third respondent/third defendant. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that was delivered to very next day, but whereas D.W.3-Vasanthi, the third respondent herself deposed that the said air mail cover was not handed over to her. Besides the evidence of D.W.1, Ex.X1 series was marked. But already stated that Ex.A1 was alleged to be executed on 07.04.2005, but Ex.A6-E.C. was obtained on 22.02.2001, which has clearly proved that it was not obtained for the purpose of entering Ex.A1. As already discussed above in earlier paragraph, a prudent purchaser before entering into a sale agreement would verify the title deed, value of the property, revenue records and encumbrance, thereafter, he entered into a sale agreement. Even though this Court has accepted the argument of the appellant/plaintiff that Ex.A2 was handed over on 07.04.2005, but Ex.A6-E.C. was not obtained for the period (i.e.) upto the period of execution of Ex.A1. In such circumstances, it is painful to accept Exs.A2 to A6 were handed over to the appellant/plaintiff by the first respondent/first defendant on the date of execution of Ex.A1. Furthermore, in a letter dated 01.06.2005 under Ex.A7, there was no evidence to show that he paid Rs.2,00,000/- on that date. Besides this, as per the Contract Act, while entering a contract, there must be a consensus adeum between both the parties. Furthermore, in a letter dated 01.06.2005 under Ex.A7, there was no evidence to show that he paid Rs.2,00,000/- on that date. Besides this, as per the Contract Act, while entering a contract, there must be a consensus adeum between both the parties. But here, there was no evidence to show that there was a meeting of mind and intention of the first respondent/first defendant to sell the property. (xix) Admittedly, a legal notice was issued by the appellant/plaintiff on 04.01.2006 under Ex.A8 and the same was returned as per Exs.A9 and A10. It is pertinent to note that there was a correspondence between the appellant/plaintiff and the first respondent/first defendant. He sent a letter through his counsel to the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Udhagamandalam and the reply from the Postal Department were marked as Exs.A11 to A16. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant/plaintiff herein issued a reply notice under Ex.A17. On 08.08.2006, he issued another notice to the second respondent/ second defendant and the same was marked as Ex.A26 and the reply was marked as Ex.A27. It is pertinent to note that the first respondent/first defendant herein has filed another suit in O.S.No.19 of 2006, which is after the present suit. Hence no reliance can be placed. The evidence let in by the P.W.1 and P.W.2 has not proved that Ex.A1 is true and genuine document. The appellant/ plaintiff has not filed any documents to show that he paid Rs.2,00,000/- on the date of Ex.A7, because the first respondent/first defendant left for Singapore, so there is strain relationship between the appellant/plaintiff and the first respondent/first defendant's family. In such circumstances, the appellant/plaintiff has not proved that Exs.A1 and A7 are true and genuine document. Hence the trial Court has considered all the aspects in proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion that Ex.A1 is not true and genuine document, so the trial Court findings does not warrant any interference. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 9. Point Nos.2 to 4: In view of the answer given to Point No.1, since Ex.A1 is not true and genuine document, the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. So the judgment and decree of the trial Court are sustainable and it does not warrant any interference. Point Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are answered accordingly. 10. In fine, • The First Appeal is dismissed with costs. So the judgment and decree of the trial Court are sustainable and it does not warrant any interference. Point Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are answered accordingly. 10. In fine, • The First Appeal is dismissed with costs. The judgment and decree dated 03.09.2007 passed in O.S.No.5 of 2006 on the file of the District Court, Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam, are hereby confirmed.