JUDGMENT K.L. MANJUNATH, J.-The divergent findings of the Courts below are called in question in this regular second appeal. 2. The appellant was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 176/1986, on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), JMFC, Doddaballapur, which was later renumbered as O.S. No. 213/ 1990. 3. A suit was filed by him to enforce the agreement of sale, dated 3.12.1984. A sum of Rs. 11,500/- was paid as advance sale consideration on the date of agreement of total sale consideration of Rs. 3,300/- and the remaining sale consideration was agreed to be paid on or before 05.01.1985. It is also the case of the plaintiff that on 04.01.1985, a further advance of Rs. 16,300/- was paid to the first defendant and also to her brother-in-law Rajanna jointly, and a shara was made on the back of the agreement. It is also his case that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. But the first defendant made an attempt to sell the property in favour of the second defendant. Therefore, he filed a suit in O.S. No. 93/1986 for perpetual injunction before the Munsiff and JMFC, Doddaballapura, which suit came to be dismissed as not maintainable since the same was filed without seeking the relief of specific performance. 4. Thereafter, the present suit came to be filed, which suit was contested by the defendant on the ground that she had not received further advance of Rs. 16,300/- on 04.01.1985 and that she has not put her signature on the shara and the same is concocted by the plaintiff at the instance of one Rajanna, her brother-in-law and that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Since he had no money to pay the balance consideration. It was also contended by her that the suit is not maintainable. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Court below: "(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that I defendant had executed the agreement dated 03.12.1984 in his favor in order to sell the suit property? (ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract? (iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that 1st defendant failed to perform her part of contract by receiving Rs. 28,000/- as alleged? (ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract? (iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that 1st defendant failed to perform her part of contract by receiving Rs. 28,000/- as alleged? (iv) Whether the defendant proves that he is entitled for getting the sale agreement executed in his name as alleged? (v) To what order or relief the plaintiff is entitled?" Additional issues: "(i) Whether the second defendant proves that he is the bona fide purchaser of the suit property for value without notice of suit agreement? (ii) Whether the suit is barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of C.P.C.? (iii) Whether the defendant No. 2 proves that time is the essence of contract? (iv) Whether the defendant No. 2 proves that suit is barred by law of limitation?" 6. In order to prove their respective contentions on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got herself examined as PW-1 and also one witness PW-2, C. Shamaiah, and relied upon Exhibit P1 to P6 on behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself was examined as DW-1 one Krishnappa was examined as DW-2, and one Gowramma as DW-3 and relied upon documents Exhibit D1 to D11. The trial Court after considering the entire evidence on record held issue Nos. 1 to 3 in affirmative, issue Nos. 4 in negative and additional issue Nos. 1 to 4 in negative and decreed the suit directing the defendant to execute the sale-deed by receiving the balance consideration. The judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 12.10.2001 was questioned by the purchaser Narayanappa in R.A. No. 201/2001, before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & J.M.F.C., at Doddaballapur. 7. The appeal was heard by the appellate Court and the appellate Court formulated the following points for its consideration: "(i) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is legal and in accordance with the facts and circumstances of case as per the decided principles of law? (ii) Whether the plaintiff's suit for relief of specific performance of contract could deserve to be decreed as prayed for?" 8. After hearing, the lower appellate Court answered both the points in favour of the appellant and reversed the findings of the trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set-aside. After hearing, the lower appellate Court answered both the points in favour of the appellant and reversed the findings of the trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set-aside. Consequently, the suit filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. Challenging the divergent findings of the Courts below, the present appeal is filed. 9. The appeal was admitted on 15.12.2006 to consider the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the finding of the first Appellate Court that the suit is barred by time is proper? (ii) Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in holding that the shara made on 04.01.1985 is no proved only because the LTM was affixed at the top and not at the bottom?" 10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. At the outset, the learned counsel for the parties admit that the substantial question of law No. 1 framed by this Court need not be answered because the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff is well within time since the date of the agreement is 3.12.1984 and the suit came to be instituted in O.S. No. 176/1986, within two years of the date of the agreement. In view of their submission what is to be considered by this Court in this appeal is only whether the shara made on 04.01.1985 has been proved by the plaintiff or not? 11. The main contention of the appellant is that on 04.01.1985, a further advance of Rs. 16,300/- was paid to the first defendant, in the presence of her brother-in-law one Rajanna and the money was paid jointly to the first defendant and Rajanna. On account of the same, what was to be paid to the plaintiff is only balance of Rs. 5,500/- and that he was always ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration. But the specific contention of the first defendant is that she has never received any further consideration and did not afixed her LTM on 04.01.1985 and no such shara has been made by her and the shara is concocted by the plaintiff at the instance of Rajanna, who is inimically deposed towards her. Therefore, in order to consider the case of the plaintiff that he has approached the Court with clean hands and he has paid further advance of Rs. Therefore, in order to consider the case of the plaintiff that he has approached the Court with clean hands and he has paid further advance of Rs. 16,300/- on 04.01.1985 and the time has been further extended, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the said shara has been proved by him in view of the defence of the defendant. 12. In order to prove the shara dated 04.01.1985, the plaintiff has relied upon his own evidence who has been examined as PW-1 and he has not chosen to examine the person who drafted the shara. He has also not examined Rajanna who has signed the shara. The Court has perused the shara available at Exhibit P1. On perusal of the shara it is clear that there is an interpolation made on the original agreement of sale. The word 'shara' is in a different ink, on looking into the shara it is clear to the Court that in order to made use of the available space, an attempt has been made to write the shara in a pencil and thereafter the same has been over written in the ink. In addition to that in order to prove the shara for the reasons best known to the plaintiff has not examined Rajanna. 13. I have also seen the evidence of the plaintiff. He has not given any explanation as to why Rajanna could not be examined by him. It is the specific case of the defendant that Rajanna who is inimically deposed towards her. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to examine Rajanna or the person who wrote the shara to prove that on 04.01.1995 a sum of Rs. 16,300/- was received by the first defendant from the plaintiff. 14. In addition to that defendant No. 1 is not literate lady, she is a widow. Her LTM is said to have been taken on the left side of the stamp paper above the shara. If a shara is made to show that she is acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 16,300/-, her signature or the LTM mark shall be found below the endorsement and not above the shara. The lower appellate Court has rightly considered the same. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence properly. 15. If a shara is made to show that she is acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 16,300/-, her signature or the LTM mark shall be found below the endorsement and not above the shara. The lower appellate Court has rightly considered the same. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence properly. 15. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the substantial question of law framed in this appeal has to be answered against the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.