JUDGMENT This first appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against judgment and order dated 06.03.1999 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Roorkee, “District Haridwar in Original Suit No. 83 of 1995, whereby the learned Court below dismissed the suit. 2. Briefly stated that the plaintiffs filed a suit being Original Suit No. 83 of 1995 Udaivir Singh and others Vs. Smt. Sukhbiri and others before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Roorkee seeking a decree of specific performance of sale with respect to the land in dispute in pursuance of agreement to sale dated 25.04.1995, and a decree of prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that Smt. Sukhbir/defendant no. 1 is the owner of the land in dispute, which is situated in village Kalyanpur@ Narsan Kalan, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. It is alleged in the plaint that defendant no. 1 entered into an agreement to sale of the land in dispute in favour of the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 5,10,000/-, and in lieu thereof, a registered agreement to sale (paper no. 10-A) was executed on 25.04.1995. Out of the said sale consideration, defendant no.1 got Rs.10,000/- as an advance and the rest amount of Rs. 50,000/- (sic, Rs. 5,00,000/-) was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. According to the agreement of sale deed was to be executed till 30.06.1996 and after the agreement of sale, possession of the property in dispute was to be transferred in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs entered into possession, took over the possession of the property in dispute and started cultivation over the same since 25.04.1995. It has further been asserted in the plaint that, as per agreement to sale, plaintiffs were always ready and willing to get a sale deed executed in their favour and they prompted defendant no.1 to complete the required procedure, and ultimately sent a notice to her on 26.05.1995, to remain present before the Sub-Registrar, Roorkee on 12th June, 1995. On 12th June, 1995, the plaintiffs put in their presence before the Sub- Registrar, Roorkee to accomplish their part, but defendant no. On 12th June, 1995, the plaintiffs put in their presence before the Sub- Registrar, Roorkee to accomplish their part, but defendant no. 1 rather fulfilling her legitimate duty, sent a notice to the plaintiffs, whereby she declined to execute sale deed and stated that she had transferred the property in dispute on 15.05.1995 in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 5. The plaintiffs have claimed that in existence of agreement to sale, the sale deed executed in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 5, is illegal, null and void as well. It is asserted that when an agreement to sale had been executed on 25.04.1995 in favour of the plaintiffs, defendant no. 1 was bound to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, but the respondents/defendants are now threatening to take possession of the land in question. Rescinding the averments made in the plaint, defendant no.1 filed her written statement in which she denied that any agreement to sale was executed in favour of the plaintiffs or she received any advance, and stated that the alleged agreement to sale is based upon fraud and deceitful version. She has further stated that she is an uneducated old lady aged about 75 years and as her nephew was in custody in connection with a murder case and since her brother insisted her to become surety, trusting on her brother, she came to Roorkee on 25.04.1995 and became as surety, where her photographs was taken and her thumb impressions were obtained on some blank papers as well. If in the garb of her becoming a surety, any agreement to sale has been executed by making fraud, the same is nothing, but illegal one and cannot be binding upon her. She asserted that her brother Sukhveer Singh and her daughter Ishwarkali deceitfully completed the process of alleged agreement to sale. Rebutting all the averments made in the plaint, defendant nos. 2 to 5 filed their written statements severally with the averments that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief whatsoever. Defendant nos. 2 to 5 rescinded the false and fake story of execution of agreement to sale stating that neither defendant no.1 took any advance, nor she entered into any agreement; me plaintiffs were neither ready orwilling to execute the sale deed nor they put in their presence before the Sub Registrar on the alleged date or time. Defendant nos. 2 to 5 rescinded the false and fake story of execution of agreement to sale stating that neither defendant no.1 took any advance, nor she entered into any agreement; me plaintiffs were neither ready orwilling to execute the sale deed nor they put in their presence before the Sub Registrar on the alleged date or time. Rebutting all the averments made in the plaint, defendant nos. 2 to 5 have stated that the land holder Smt. Sukhbiri entered into an agreement to sale in favour of Ravindra Kumar and others (defendant nos. 2 to 5) for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,50,000/- and on 15.05.1995, she executed a sale deed (paper no. 55-C) in their favour. The prospective purchasers were continuing in possession of the land in dispute since prior to the agreement to sale and were cultivating the same, on contract basis, on behalf of the original land holder, and after execution of the sale deed (paper no. 55C), possession of land in dispute was formally transferred to the purchasers. It was asserted in the written statements that in the garb of the alleged agreement to sale obtained by fraud and deceitful manner, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief and since the property in dispute falls in the territory of a village, where process of consolidation is pending, no prohibitory injunction can be passed, in respect of the land pending consolidation process. The suit of plaintiffs is not only barred under Section 5 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 but it is also barred by Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It has been further asserted that defendant nos. 2 to 5 are in possession of the land in question. 3. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an amendment application in the suit, seeking relief of possession over the land in dispute. 4. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings and the rival contentions of the parties, framed necessary issues. Thereafter, the parties led their oral and documentary evidence before the trial Court. 3. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an amendment application in the suit, seeking relief of possession over the land in dispute. 4. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings and the rival contentions of the parties, framed necessary issues. Thereafter, the parties led their oral and documentary evidence before the trial Court. Before the Court below, the plaintiffs in the form of oral evidence, examined PW-1 Vijendra Pal Tyagi, PW-2 Udaivir Singh, PW-3 Ishwarkali and PW-4 Vinod KumarAgarwal and in the form of documentary evidence, produced original agreement-10A, notice dated 26.05.1995-11C, reply of notice-12C, registration of presence and registration fee-13A and 15A, receipt of post office-17 A, acknowledgement- 18A, copy of AAKARPATRA- 19C, application of presence at Sub Registrar- 77C and 78C, copy of statement of defendant no.1 given before Consolidation Officer-79C, copy of AAKARPATRAS-93C, 94C, 95C,96C, copy of KHATAUNI 99C, thumb impressions-113C/2, 116C/1 to 3, negatives 116/4, finger print 116C/5, impugned thumb impression-116C/6, thumb impression-116C/7. The defendants in the form of oral evidence, have examined DW-1 Smt. Sukhbiri, DW-2 Smt. Omkari, DW-3 Bijendra Pal Singh, DW-4 Ravindra Kumar and DW-5 Tej Veer Singh. The defendants in the form of documentary evidence, produced receipt APASEE 45C to 47C, certified copy of sale deed in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 5- paper no. 55-C, list of loan- 89C, consolidated AAKARPATRAS-90C, 91C, report of specialist-120C-2/1 to 3, photograph of thumb impression 120C 2/4, photograph of impugned thumb impression-120C 2/5, sample photograph of thumb impression-120C 2/6 and negative of thumb impression-120C 2/7. The Court below vide impugned order dated 06.03.1999 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants. 5. Issue nos. 1 and 4 were framed to the effect that (1) Whether respondent no.1, after dealing the sale with plaintiffs in Rs. 5,10,000/-, has executed a registered agreement to sale on 25.04.95 in favour of the plaintiffs and received Rs. 10,000/- as advance? (4) Whether the sale agreement dated 25.04.95 is based upon deception and misrepresentation on the part of Sukhveer Singh and Ishwarkali, brother and daughter of defendant no.1 respectively? While dealing with these issues, the learried trial Court came to the conclusion that though paper no. 10,000/- as advance? (4) Whether the sale agreement dated 25.04.95 is based upon deception and misrepresentation on the part of Sukhveer Singh and Ishwarkali, brother and daughter of defendant no.1 respectively? While dealing with these issues, the learried trial Court came to the conclusion that though paper no. 10-A bears thumb impression of Smt. Sukhbiri, which, according to the plaintiffs, is the sale agreement, but neither the sale agreement was read over or explained to defendant no.1 nor the same was legally proved by the plaintiffs, hence the sale agreement paper no.10-A is not binding upon defendant no.1 or other defendants. The Court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they got the agreement to sale executed from Smt. Sukhbiri on her own wish. Whereas on the basis of the circumstances of the case and from the evidence adduced by the defendants, it is evident that the alleged agreement to sale was executed by her brother Sukhveer Singh and her daughter Ishwarkali, on 25.04.1995, concealing the real facts and by playing fraud on Smt. Sukhbiri. Accordingly, the Court below decided both these issues against the plaintiffs/appellants. Issue no.2 has been framed to the effect that whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to comply the agreement to sale dated 25.04. 1995? The trial Court came to the conclusion that the agreement to sale dated 25.04.1995 is not legally proved on the face of the record by producing cogent evidence, hence the defendants cannot be compelled for its execution. Accordingly, issue no.2 was decided against the plaintiffs. In issue no.3, which has been framed to the effect that whether the defendant nos. 2 to 5 are governed by the sale agreement dated 25.04. 1995? The trial Court concluded that neither the agreement to sale was read over or explained to Smt. Sukhbiri nor it was properly executed, thus this issue was decided against the plaintiffs. In respect of issue no. 5, which was framed to the effect that whether the defendant no.1 handed over possession of the property in dispute to defendant nos. 2 to 5 through a sale agreement, three years before executing sale deed in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 5 if so, its effect? The trial Court found that the defendant no.1 has categorically admitted possession of defendant nos. 2 to 5 through a sale agreement, three years before executing sale deed in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 5 if so, its effect? The trial Court found that the defendant no.1 has categorically admitted possession of defendant nos. 2 to 5 over the property in dispute and further, if such possession was not delivered before execution of sale deed, in that state of affairs, the plaintiffs cannot acquire any advantage, hence this issue was decided in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 5. So far issue no. 6 and 7 are concerned which have been framed to the effect that (6) whether the suit is barred under Section 41 of Specific Relief Act and (7) whether the suit is liable to be abated under Section 5(2) of Consolidation Acr? The same were decided in negative, as these issues were not pressed by the defendants. In respect of issue no. 8 which has been framed to the effect that to which relief, the plaintiffs are entitled to, the trial Court did not find the plaintiffs entitling them for any relief. 6. Shri Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiffs submitted that the land in dispute is a Bhumidhari land. He submitted that the plaintiff/ appellants were always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and requested the defendant no.1 to execute the same. He further stated that any subsequent pleading in the written statement by developing a theory for the purposes of denying the agreement for sale under the pretext that it was executed by way of security to the bail bonds was a concocted and a story qualifying the reply to the notice, cannot be accepted. He submitted that the theory of having not entered Into the agreement for sale by the defendant cannot be accepted because looking to the quantum of sale consideration as agreed with the plaintiffs and that with the other defendant nos. 2 to 5 its margin was not so exorbitant which could have created a doubt about the execution of the agreement·for sale. 2 to 5 its margin was not so exorbitant which could have created a doubt about the execution of the agreement·for sale. He also submitted that the appellants, on the basis of the notice, appeared in the office of Sub-Registrar on the scheduled date and recorded their presence for the purposes of getting the sale deed executed, despite of the fact that the other co-defendants were having the knowledge of the agreement for sale on 25.04.1995 by virtue of a registered agreement for sale, it was incumbent upon them to have made an enquiry before the Sub-Registrar prior to execution of the sale deed on 15.05.1995 as required under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. He contended that the defendant nos. 2 to 5 have come up with the case that they were put in possession three years before execution of sale deed in their favour by Smt. Sukhbiri/defendant no.1, which contravened the Provisions of Section-163 and 164 of U.P. ZamindariAbolition and Land Reforms Act and makes the defendants liable for ejectment. Similarly, Smt. Sukhbiri also became liable to be ejected, therefore she had no right or title to execute any sale deed in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 5. He contended that execution of agreement to sale dated 25.04.1995 in favour of plaintiffs is duly proved, as Smt. Sukhbiri herself admits the execution of agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiffs and she had merely alleged that the said document has been obtained by misrepresentation. He further contended that the Court below has erred in law in holding that the agreement to sale dated 25.04.1995 has not been read over and explained to Smt. Sukhbiri, as according to him, the form in which the agreement to sale has been written, contains 2 or 3 clerical mistakes. He contended that the reading and explanation of the document does not mean reading of the document by “comma” and “full stop”, but the reading of the document means the intention of the document and essential· contents of the documents have been read over and explained to the person concerned, so that she or he should know the nature of right affected by the said document He contended that notice dated 26.05.1995, asking defendant no.1 to execute the sale deed, has duly been served upon her and the plaintiffs wanted the agreement to sale to be completed. He submitted that the plaintiffs have proved upto the hilt that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, as it is proved by the plaintiffs that defendant no.1, after obtaining Rs. 10,000/-, executed an agreement to sale dated 25.04.1995 and got it registered, as such, the registration carries the effect of due execution. Therefore, defendant nos. 2 to 5 were bound by the agreement to sale dated 25.04.1995 and the sale deed executed in their favour is in the teeth of the said document and is bad in the eye of law. It is further contended that the finding on issue no.5 that the land was given on lease to defendant nos. 2 to 5, is sufficient to make the transaction void and unforceable in law. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of plaintiff/appellants has submitted that in the case in hand evidence tendered by PW-3 Ishwarkali, daughter of defendant no.1 is of much importance, who never asserted that she was not having cordial relationship with Smt Sukhbiri. But PW-3, in her statement admits that Smt Sukhbiri had executed the agreement for sale and thus, the factum of execution of an agreement for sale, which is a registered document, is proved much less than by the daughter of Smt. Sukhbiri herself no other evidence is required to be adduced for specific performance of it He contended that even from the statement of Smt Sukhbiri, the inference, which is drawn, is that in her first testimony of reply to the notice, she denied of having executed the agreement for sale, but as an afterthought and the new story, which has been developed by her in the statement recorded before the Court below to the effect that the document was got executed under the pretext of executing the bail bond apart from the fact that it was concocted and after though story, the same could not be relied with, as the testimony of Ishwarkali do not plead that the agreement for sale was executed under that pretext of execution of bail bond. So far no readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is concerned, it is submitted that since the agreement for sale dated 25.04.1995 provided that the sale deed was to be executed by 30.06.1996 and since the appellants had already issued notices on 26.05.1995 for getting sale deed executed and had called upon the respondents to appear on 12.06.1995 as well as the pleadings to the effect that they were financially viable to get the deed executed, shows their readiness and willingness to get the deed executed. He submitted that admittedly the agreement for sale is registered and duly stamped, in that event, in view of the provisions contained under Section 35 of the StampAct and Section 48 of the Registration Act, no evidence against a registered document is required to be adduced to prove its execution. He contended that under the Transfer of Property Act, a deed of conveying the property, having executed prior in time, will have precedence over the subsequent sale deed. And Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act creates an embargo on the prospective purchaser to hold an enquiry from the office of Sub Registrar to ensure about the propriety of the probable sale deed to be executed in his favour and having not done so, the sale deed dated 15.05.1995 will have no precedence. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellants relied on the judgment of this Court, reported in 2010 (2) U.D.-326 ‘Ram swaroop Singh and others vs. Karan Singh and others’. 7. On the contrary, Shri V. K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate appearing for defendant no.1 has submitted that Smt. Shukhbiri did not execute any agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiffs; she did not receive any advance in lieu thereof and the alleged sale agreement is fake and fabricated one. He further submitted that nephew of defendant no.1 was in custody in connection with a murder case and since her brother had insisted her to become surety, trusting on her brother, defendant no.1 came to Roorkee on 25.04.1995 and stood as surety for the bail application filed on behalf of the son of Sukhveer Singh, where her photograph was taken and her thumb impressions were obtained on some blank papers. He argued that if in the name of bail, any agreement to sale is executed fraudulently, the same will be considered to be illegal and is not binding upon defendant no.1. He argued that since brother as well as daughter of Smt. Sukhbiri, namely, Sukhveer Singh and Ishwarkali deceitfully completed the process of alleged agreement to sale, the same is not binding upon defendant no.1 in any manner. He submitted that Smt Sukhbiri had validly executed a sale deed in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 5 on 15.05.1995, by accepting a valid consideration of Rs. 5,50,000/-. He also submitted that the possession of the plaintiffs on the land in dispute is not established on the basis of evidence on record. Further the plaintiffs tried to amend the relief made in the plaint by seeking relief of possession over the disputed land, thus they withdrew from the earlier pleadings contained in the plaint that they came into possession on the land in dispute on the date of alleged agreement to sale dated 25.04.1995. He submitted that while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, the Court below has recorded categorical findings that the ‘execution of alleged agreement to sale dated 25.04.1995, is not established and the same is based on fraud, misrepresentation of fact and was the result of fraud played by the plaintiffs upon Smt. Sukhbiri/ defendant no. 1, who was an old and illiterate lady. He further submitted that the Court below has rightly held that relief claimed in the suit cannot be granted, as the plaintiffs have failed to discharge the burden of proof of their readiness and willingness as provided for under Section 16 (c) (II) of the Specific Relief Act, as also on the ground that the reliefs are self contradictory to the pleadings contained in the plaint. 8. Mr. P.K. Singh, Advocate appearing for defendant nos. 2 to 5 argued that defendant nos. 2 to 5 are the owners, who are in possession of the land in dispute on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 15.05.1995 against a valid consideration and the said deed was executed without any knowledge or information about the alleged agreement to sale in favour of plaintiffs. He submitted that relief of specific performance of sale contract is not sustainable under law, inasmuch as, defendants nos. He submitted that relief of specific performance of sale contract is not sustainable under law, inasmuch as, defendants nos. 2 to 5 were not parties, in the alleged agreement to sale dated 25.04.1995. He contended that relief of specific performance could not be claimed and granted as against the valid purchasers, till the sale deed 15.05.1995 in their favour was set aside by any competent Court of law. He further contended that earlier relief in the plaint was for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession, however, subsequently the plaintiffs set forth an amended relief claiming possession over the land in dispute, without bringing on record any date, fact and circumstances, by which possession of the disputed land from them, was taken over. Relying on paragraph nos. 21,28, 30 and 31 of the judgment of Honbte Apex Court, rendered in Athar Sultana vs. B. Rajamani and others, reported in 2009 (17) SCC- 27, learned counsel for defendant nos. 2 to 5 contended that in the present case, neither from the contents of plaint, nor from the oral statement, it is established on record that the plaintiffs had available with them the requisite amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, when they registered their attendance in the office of the Sub Registrar, Roorkee, which could be paid to the vendor for executing the sale deed of the land in question in pursuance of the alleged agreement to sale dated 25.04.1995. He argued that although the plaintiffs claimed to have sent notice to defendant no.1 on 26.05.1995, calling upon her to execute sale deed on 12.06.1995 in terms of agreement to sale dated 25.04.1995, but no explanation is given in the plaint, as to how and why the necessity arose to serve the aforesaid notice, when the time agreed for executing sale deed was till 30.06.1996. Banking on the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Mohammadiya Cooperative Building Society Ltd. vs. Lakshmi Srinivasa, reported in 2008 (7) SCC-310 and Inderchand Jain vs. Moti Lal, reported in 2009 (14) SCC-663, learned counsel for defendant nos. Banking on the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Mohammadiya Cooperative Building Society Ltd. vs. Lakshmi Srinivasa, reported in 2008 (7) SCC-310 and Inderchand Jain vs. Moti Lal, reported in 2009 (14) SCC-663, learned counsel for defendant nos. 2 to 5 has contended that the Court below was fully justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, because jurisdiction to grant relief of specific performance of contract of sale is purely discretionary, inasmuch as, while exercising discretion under Section 20 of Act, the High Court is also required to balance the equities between the contesting parties. He contended that on one hand the possession of the defendants over the said land continues unabated since the year 1995, but on the other, the plaintiffs are staking their right on the land in dispute against alleged payment of only Rs. 10,000/- as advance payment but there is no proof of such payment. Contention of the learned counsel for defendant nos. 2 to 5 is that as on date the cost/market price of the disputed land has escalated many folds and presently the said land is worth more than Rs. 50,00,000/-, hence the balancing of equities demands that if the plaintiffs are deemed to be entitled to any relief then they may be compensated at the discretion of the High Court. In this regard, he has referred the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in K. Narendra vs. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd., 1999 (5) SCC 77 and Janardhanam Prasad vs. Ramdas, 2007 (15) SCC, 174. 9. I have gone through the plaint, written statements, judgment passed by the Court below as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. In the backdrop of what has been mentioned above and revealed, this Court has to see and adjudge as to whether the Court below, while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants, has committed any illegality or perversity. It is the admitted fact that defendant no.1 Smt. Sukhbiri sold out the property in question to defendant nos. 2 to 5 vide sale deed dated 15.05.1985, but according to plaintiffs, Smt. Sukhbiri/defendant no.1 had no right to sell and defendant nos. It is the admitted fact that defendant no.1 Smt. Sukhbiri sold out the property in question to defendant nos. 2 to 5 vide sale deed dated 15.05.1985, but according to plaintiffs, Smt. Sukhbiri/defendant no.1 had no right to sell and defendant nos. 2 to 5 had no right to purchase the property in question because earlier on 25.04.1995, Smt. Sukhbiri entered into a registered agreement to sale with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sent notice to defendant no.1 on 26.05.1995 for execution of sale deed in their favour in pursuance of the agreement to sale and when defendant no.1 did not execute sale deed in accordance with the conditions mentioned in the agreement to sale dated 25.04.1995, the plaintiffs moved the Court below. The plaintiffs have examined PW-1 Vijendra Pal Tyagi, Advocate, who drafted agreement to sale (paper no. 10-A), who in his testimony has stated that after preparing the draft, he read it over and explained to both the parties, but endorsement of his name is not found mentioned on the dorsal side of said agreement to sale, rather the name of Vijendra Kumar, Advocate has been endorsed. Thus, the draft of agreement, itself was not read over or examined by PW-1 Mr. Vijendra Pal Tyagi. Although, this witness has put his signatures in said agreement, verifying the signatures of the parties entered into deal, but in his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he was not acquainted with Smt. Sukhbiri, before execution of said agreement to sale. Hence; this witness cannot be adjudged as an independent witness and he was rightly been declared as an interested witness. Another name of witness regarding verification is endorsed as Smt. Omkari, who has not been produced by the plaintiffs for the reason best known to them. In this perspective, oral testimony of DW-1 Smt. Sukhbiri is crucial and her oral evidence shall have override effect upon the alleged agreement to sale in order to prove or disprove its execution. DW-1 Smt. Sukhbiri in her statement has stated that the alleged agreement to sale is based upon fraud and deceitful version. In this perspective, oral testimony of DW-1 Smt. Sukhbiri is crucial and her oral evidence shall have override effect upon the alleged agreement to sale in order to prove or disprove its execution. DW-1 Smt. Sukhbiri in her statement has stated that the alleged agreement to sale is based upon fraud and deceitful version. She has further stated that she is an uneducated old lady aged about 75 years and as her nephew was in custody in connection with a murder case and since her brother insisted her to become a surety, trusting on her brother, she came to Roorkee on 25.04.1995 and became surety, where her photographs was taken and her thumb impressions were obtained on some blank papers as well. If, in the garb of her becoming a surety, any agreement to sale has been executed by making fraud, the same is nothing, but legal one and cannot be binding upon her. She asserted that her brother Sukhveer Singh and her daughter Ishwarkali deceitfully completed the process of alleged agreement to sale. She categorically stated that the alleged agreement to sale was not read over or explained to her at the time of its execution. In this perspective, the plaintiffs have produced PW-3 Ishwarkali (daughter of defendant no.1) who has stated that her mother after receiving Rs. 10,000/- as an advance, handed over possession of the property in question (the property is measuring about 36-37 BIGHAS) and sale deed was to be executed within 14 months. The plaintiffs in their evidence has filed the agreement to sale but they have not filed any receipt of cash or cheque, through which they paid Rs. 10,000/- to Smt. Sukhbiri/respondent no. 1 as advance out of the sale consideration. It is quite conspicuous that measuring about 36-37 BIGHAS agricultural land was handed over through alleged agreement to sale that too after receiving merely a meager sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, execution of impugned agreement to sale dated 25.04.1995 is not proved on the face of the record. Notwithstanding that, readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs for execution of a sale deed on the date, time and place cannot be given too weightage in the state where oral statement of the true owner, recorded before the Court, on oath, is available. Notwithstanding that, readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs for execution of a sale deed on the date, time and place cannot be given too weightage in the state where oral statement of the true owner, recorded before the Court, on oath, is available. Another point is this that when the plaintiff had earlier sought a decree of specific performance of sale and a decree of prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute, then why they moved an amendment application seeking possession over the property in dispute. Moreover, without seeking decree of cancellation of agreement to sale dated 15.05.1995 (paper no. 55-C), the plaintiffs cannot claim decree of possession over the land in dispute. The version of the plaintiffs is ridiculous and percussive, because by filing the amendment application they tried to rectify their mistake in order to fill up the lacuna left out unfilled deliberately, which is adjudged to be a vantage ground. This Court finds that the plaintiffs betrayed by playing fraud upon Smt. Sukhbiri/defendant no.1. Onus was upon the plaintiffs to prove their version by producing reliable and cogent evidence. In order to prove any deal or agreement to sale as alleged, supporting evidence should be comprehensive and convincing as well. Rather, it has come in the evidence that the alleged agreement to sale is based upon fraud and deceitful version, on the other hand, this Court finds that the plea taken by the defendants is convincing ab-initio. Possession of the defendant nos. 2 to 5 is persisting, as per the evidence of PW-1 Smt. Sukhbiri. So far possession of the plaintiffs over the property in question is concerned, their entire version being vague and ambiguous falsify the same. If the sale agreement dated 25.04.1995 vis-a-vis the sale deed dated 15.05.1995 are considered altogether, it resonate that when in the agreement, it was clearly mentioned that the sale deed would be executed by 30.6.1996, why the plaintiffs sent notice to the defendants on such an early date i.e. on 26.05.1995. This creates doubt. The defendants cannot be compelled to simulate or execute the unproven agreement to sale dated 25.04.1995. In the facts and circumstances, narrated as above, proposition of law cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants is not applicable in the case in hand. This creates doubt. The defendants cannot be compelled to simulate or execute the unproven agreement to sale dated 25.04.1995. In the facts and circumstances, narrated as above, proposition of law cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants is not applicable in the case in hand. However, on assessment of the assertions made by the parties, the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the law cited by the learned counsel for the parties, essence is nothing than that findings recorded by the learned Court below are correct. This Court does not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order impugned. I concur with the findings recorded by the court below, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs.