JUDGMENT N. KUMAR, J.-These two appeals are preferred by the defendant in the suit challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, which has declared that the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in O.S. No. 229/1990, is fraudulent and consequently setting aside the sale deed. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in O.S. No. 229/1990. 3. The subject matter of the suit is the land bearing block No. 219 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas assessed at Rs. 2.16 ps at Madanbhavi Village, Dharwad Taluka. The plaintiff is Basayya Rachayya Hiremath. The defendant is Basayya Shivaputraya Hiremath. The case of the plaintiff is, the land of the defendant measuring 2 acre 20 guntas is adjacent to the suit land of plaintiff. After his retirement, the defendant is residing at Madanbhavi Village. In order to acquire the property in the same village, he picked up quarrel in the village. On account of such quarrel with the plaintiff, panchayat was held in the village on 05.02.1990, wherein the elderly persons settled the matter. The defendant not being satisfied with said settlement of the elderly persons, hatched a plan with his henchmen. The plaintiff was taken to the Sub-Registrar's office, Dharwad, falsely, representing to the plaintiff that a sale deed was to be executed by one of the henchmen and the plaintiff should attest the said document. Though the plaintiff was reluctant to accompany them to the sub-Registrar's office, the henchmen of the defendant namely Ningangouda, Hanamantagouda Patil, Babagouda alias Balasaba Hanamansik Patil, Madiwalayya Chanabasayya Hiremath, Mallappa G. Subhedar and Shivalingayya Basappa Hiremath have forcefully taken the plaintiff to the Sub-Registrar's office, Dharwad. When the plaintiff was taken to Dharwad, he was not allowed to move up or to meet anybody to speak. He was asked to sit near the Sub-Registrar's office up to 4.00 p.m. which was a Bazaar day i.e., Tuesday. The plaintiff was called in the office and asked to attest the document, as an attesting witness, and he was given to understand that that Ninganagouda Hanamantagouda Patil has executed a document in favour of the defendant. When the plaintiff was taken inside the office, the plaintiff was asked to sign the document as an attesting witness which was not read over nor any money was counted before him. When the plaintiff was taken inside the office, the plaintiff was asked to sign the document as an attesting witness which was not read over nor any money was counted before him. It appears, even the Sub-Registrar has colluded with the defendant. It is falsely recited in the document that Rs. 2,000/- has been counted before the Sub-Registrar, which in fact, did not take place. The fact of sale transaction has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff on 01/03/1990 when there was a rumour in the village that the defendant has purchased the suit land from the plaintiff. The plaintiff was surprised to hear this rumour. The plaintiff came to the Sub-Registrar's office on 02/03/1990 and made enquiry and it revealed that there was sale transaction in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff is certain that the defendant in collusion with his henchmen has practiced fraud upon him by making a representation that the plaintiff was required to attest a sale deed of Ninganagouda Hanamantagouda Patil. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the alleged sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant is a forged one and it does not convey any title to the suit land and consequential relief of injunction against the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land of the plaintiff. Therefore, he sought for a declaration that the sale deed dated 06/02/1990 alleged to have been executed by him in favour of the defendant is nullity and it does not convey any title to the suit land. He also sought for a decree of permanent injunction and alternatively it was prayed that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is out of possession, in that event, the possession of the suit land be ordered. The suit was filed on 06/03/1990. 4. After service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement. It is his specific case that the plaintiff was in financial difficulty and he wanted to dispose of the suit property. The said suit land originally belong to the defendant's family. The defendants is having his another land just adjacent to the suit land bearing B1 No. 220. So he quoted the highest price i.e., Rs. 4,000/- to the whole land of 1 acre 20 guntas. The said land is inferior land with red soil. The said suit land originally belong to the defendant's family. The defendants is having his another land just adjacent to the suit land bearing B1 No. 220. So he quoted the highest price i.e., Rs. 4,000/- to the whole land of 1 acre 20 guntas. The said land is inferior land with red soil. The plaintiff agreed to sell for the price quoted by the defendant and demanded half of the price of the whole land i.e., Rs. 2,000/- as consideration amount and has received Rs. 2,000/- in the presence of some elderly persons of the village at Madanbhavi village on 05/02/1990. The plaintiff also handed over the possession of the suit land to the defendant on the very day. After taking possession of the suit land, the defendant has improved the land by putting new soil and fertilzer. There was only one bund in between defendant's own land and the suit land. The defendant has removed the bund and has grown sugar cane in the suit land. On 06/02/1990, the plaintiff has received the balance price of the suit land i.e. Rs. 2,000/- and has executed a registered sale deed in the sub-registrar office at Dharwad. As stated by him, he was never called to sub-Registrar office to sign as an attesting witness to some other sale deed. The sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour the defendant before the sub-Registrar is a genuine document and not a forged one. The allegations of collusion between the defendant and the Sub-Registrar was denied. The allegation that he was asked to sign document without reading the contents was also denied. It is asserted that the plaintiff has accepted Rs. 2,000/- balance amount in the presence of Sub-Registrar, Dharwad. The allegation that he came to know of the facts of the sale deed on 01/03/1990 was denied. The defendant has also filed one original suit bearing O.S. No. 329/1990 and has obtained temporary injunction against the plaintiff. From the prayer at Column No. 6(C), it is clear that the plaintiff is not in possession of the land. He is not entitled to possession. Therefore, defendant sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. This written statement was filed on 18/04/1992. However, prior to filing of the written statement, the defendant in the said suit filed O.S. No. 329/1990. From the prayer at Column No. 6(C), it is clear that the plaintiff is not in possession of the land. He is not entitled to possession. Therefore, defendant sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. This written statement was filed on 18/04/1992. However, prior to filing of the written statement, the defendant in the said suit filed O.S. No. 329/1990. In the said plaint, the case put forth by the defendant in O.S. No. 229/1990 is the plaintiff was in need of money to met out his family expenses. So plaintiff thought of selling his land which is adjacent to his agricultural land bearing No. B1 220. The defendant desired to purchase the suit land and enquired with the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to sell the suit land for value of Rs. 4,000/- as he was badly in need of money. The plaintiff demanded from the defendant the advance of Rs. 2,000/- towards sale consideration. Rs. 2,000/- was paid to the plaintiff in the presence of the elders of the village on a condition that balance amount of Rs. 2,000/-will be paid to the plaintiff at the time of sale deed in the presence of Sub-Registrar, Dharwad. After some days, the plaintiff again demanded some more money from the defendant. The defendant had kept the balance amount ready to purchase the suit land. On 06/02/1990, the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant in the presence of 5 witnesses of his village, after receiving balance consideration amount of Rs. 2,000/-in the presence of Sub-Registrar, Dharwad. The defendant has also produced NS certificate worth Rs. 200/- in his name and on the same day, the plaintiff handed over the actual possession of the suit land to the defendant. Since then, the defendant is in actual possession and wahiwat of the suit property as an absolute owner. He also started cultivating the land. On 27/03/1990, on Ugadi-a new year day, the defendant performed pooja of the land. The defendant, by spending huge amount, has removed the common bund and joined the suit land to his land. Now at the instance of the ill-wishers of the defendant in the village, the plaintiff is objecting for entering the name of the defendant in the record of rights in respect of the suit land. The defendant, by spending huge amount, has removed the common bund and joined the suit land to his land. Now at the instance of the ill-wishers of the defendant in the village, the plaintiff is objecting for entering the name of the defendant in the record of rights in respect of the suit land. Plaintiff has also filed a suit in Munsiff Court at Dharwad in O.S. No. 229/1990 for declaration and consequential relief of injunction praying that the sale deed executed by him in favour of the defendant on 06/02/1990 is nullity. He has also prayed for possession. Therefore, he sought for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from causing any obstruction, in any way in peaceful enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff has filed a detailed statement of objections reiterating what he has stated in the plaintiff in O.S. No. 229/1990. In both the suits separate issues were framed as under: OS No. 229/1990: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged sale deed dated 6.2.190 executed in favour of the defendant is null and void? 2. Whether the plaintiff Proves that he alleged sale deed dated 6.2.90 does not convey any title to the suit land? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference in his peaceful enjoyment of the suit land by the deft? 4. Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is correct and proper? 5. To what order or decree? In O.S. No. 329/1990: 1. Does plaintiff prove that he is the lawful owner in possession of the suit property on the strength of the registered sale deed dated 6.2.1990? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged obstruction by the defendant? 3. To what reliefs the plaintiff is entitled? 4. What decree or order? 6. Evidence was recorded in both the suits separately. In O.S. No. 229/1990, the plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim, examined himself as PW-1 and produced 7 documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to P-7. The defendant examined himself as DW-1 and he examined 2 witnesses as DWS 2 and 3 and produced 4 documents which are marked as Exs.D-1 to D4. In O.S. No. 229/1990, the plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim, examined himself as PW-1 and produced 7 documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to P-7. The defendant examined himself as DW-1 and he examined 2 witnesses as DWS 2 and 3 and produced 4 documents which are marked as Exs.D-1 to D4. In O.S. No. 329/1990, the defendant in order to establish his claim examined himself as PW-2 and examined 2 witnesses as PWs 1 and 3 and produced 4 documents which are marked as Exs.P-1 to P-4. The plaintiff, who is defendant in the suit examined himself as DW-1 and he examined 4 witnesses as DWs.2, 3 and 4 and produced 3 documents which are marked as Exs.D1 and D3. 7. The trial Court, in both the suits, on appreciation of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case of fraud and misrepresentation in executing the sale deed whereas the defendant has established that the plaintiff has executed a registered sale deed for valuable consideration of Rs. 4,000/- and he has been put in possession of the schedule property and after being in possession he has made improvements and accordingly, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 229/1990 and decreed the suit of the defendant in O.S. No. 329/1990. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred R.A. No. 120/1995 against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 229/1990 and preferred R.A.121/1995 against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 329/1990. Both the appeals were heard together by the lower appellate Court. After hearing the parties, the lower appellate Court was of the view that there is no adequate evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of his case of fraud and therefore it remanded the matter back to the trial Court to record a finding on the question of fraud. After such remand, the trial Court framed the following issues in both the suit: Addl. Issues in O.S. No. 229/1990 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged sale deed date 6.2.1990 was obtained by practicing fraud and misrepresentation on him by the deft. and his men? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he was taken forcibly to the sub-Registrar office Dharwad on 6.2.1990 by defendant and his henchman in order to get executed the alleged sale deed? Addl. Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged sale deed date 6.2.1990 was obtained by practicing fraud and misrepresentation on him by the deft. and his men? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he was taken forcibly to the sub-Registrar office Dharwad on 6.2.1990 by defendant and his henchman in order to get executed the alleged sale deed? Addl. Issues in O.S. No. 329/90 1. Whether the deft. Proves that he was taken forcibly to the Sub-Registrar Office, Dharwad by the plaintiff and attestors to the alleged sale deed for execution of sale deed dated 6.2.90 by him in favour of plaintiff? 2. Whether the deft. Proves that the plff. In collusion with Sub-Registrar Dharwad has taken his signature to the sale deed dt. 6.2.90 by practicing fraud and mis-representation on him? 9. After remand, evidence was recorded by the trial Court. It recorded a finding that fraud and mis-representation pleaded by the plaintiff is established and the said finding was sent to the appellate Court. The lower appellate Court on appreciation of the entire evidence, over again, has accepted the said finding of the trial Court and set aside the decree in suit O.S. No. 229/1990 and dismissed suit in O.S. No. 329/1990. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, these two appeals are preferred by the defendant in the suit. 10. At the time of admitting this appeal, substantial questions of law have been framed. But I pointed out to them that the substantial questions of law framed do not arise for consideration. They fairly agreed to be so. Therefore, the only substantial question of law that arises for consideration in these second appeals is as under: Whether the sale deed dated 06/02/1990 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant is vitiated by fraud and mis-representation? 11. The facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property. Defendant owns the land adjoining the suit schedule property. The evidence on record discloses that earlier, the defendant owned the schedule property. Both of them were beneficiaries of the provision of the Fragmentation and Consolidation Holdings Act. The defendant was in service. After retirement, he settled down in the village. Prior to the sale deed dated 06/02/1990, there existed dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the lands. Their relationship was not cordial. Both of them were beneficiaries of the provision of the Fragmentation and Consolidation Holdings Act. The defendant was in service. After retirement, he settled down in the village. Prior to the sale deed dated 06/02/1990, there existed dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the lands. Their relationship was not cordial. The defendant is a retired government official whereas the plaintiff is an astrologer/Swami, who has crossed the age of 70 years. The case of the plaintiff is, against his wishes, he was taken to the Sub-Registrar's office by the henchmen of the defendant for the purpose of attesting the document. Therefore, he admits he went to the Sub-Registrar's office on 06/02/1990. He has affixed his signature as an attesting witness. Further, he specifically contends he had no intention to sell the schedule property to the defendant. He has not executed any sale deed in favour of the defendant. He has not received any consideration which is mentioned in the sale deed. He did not receive any consideration at the time of registration. He has not received any consideration prior to the registration. He has not handed over the possession of the property to the defendant. On the contrary, the specific case of the defendant is that the plaintiff was badly in need of money. He wanted to sell the schedule property. The defendant being his brother and adjacent land owner, as the plaintiff was badly in need of money, he quoted highest price, the plaintiff agreed and has executed the sale deed. Rs. 2,000/- has been received prior to the execution of the sale deed and further Rs. 2,000/- has been received on the date of the sale deed. Possession is also delivered to him. After getting the possession, he has improved the land. He has removed the bund. He has planted sugarcane in the entire land. It is in this background, we have to find out whose case is more probable. 12. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim, has examined himself and has also examined two witnesses who support his case. That apart, he relied on two documents, one is a letter addressed by the Sub-Registrar to him on 08/03/1990 after filing of the suit on 06/03/1990, calling upon him to come to the Sub-Registrar's Office to affix his signature to the sale deed to which he has not taken his signature. That apart, he relied on two documents, one is a letter addressed by the Sub-Registrar to him on 08/03/1990 after filing of the suit on 06/03/1990, calling upon him to come to the Sub-Registrar's Office to affix his signature to the sale deed to which he has not taken his signature. Yet another document is anterior to the filing of the suit which discloses that the dispute regarding survey No. of the property owned by the parties. The said documents are marked as Exs.P-4 and P-5. Ex.P-5 is relied on to show that there was no cordial relationship between the parties and dispute existed. The question is when there is a dispute, would the plaintiff execute the sale deed straight away to the defendant for a paltry sum of Rs. 4,000/- when the admitted evidence on record and admitted plea in the written statement shows that it is a sugarcane growing land and the extent is 1 acre 10 guntas. These two documents are not disputed by the defendant in the evidence. The defendant also admits in his evidence existence of dispute in respect of the landed properties. Therefore, the factum of want of cordial relationship between the parties and the existence of the dispute is proved in the case. 13. However, next question is whether plaintiff has executed the sale deed for the consideration mentioned in the said document. The original sale deed is produced in this case and marked as Ex.D-3. The sale deed runs to 5 pages. First 4 pages are stamp papers and the last sheet is a green sheet. The document is written in Kannada. Strictly at the end of the document, we find the signature of the scribe first, after the signature of the scribe, signature of the plaintiff is found on the bottom of page 4. Thereafter, we have the signature of 4 witnesses on the green sheet at page No. 5. What is interesting to note is, we do not find the signature of the plaintiff at the end of writing on each page. It is very strange. The stamp paper discloses that it is purchased by the plaintiff himself. The stamp paper is worth Rs. 400/-. It is no body's case that the seller has to bear the stamp duty while executing the sale deed. It is very strange. The stamp paper discloses that it is purchased by the plaintiff himself. The stamp paper is worth Rs. 400/-. It is no body's case that the seller has to bear the stamp duty while executing the sale deed. An attempt is made for the first time before this Court to contend that the stamp paper is purchased by the plaintiff and he has affixed his signature and because he has admitted that he has attested the document and it has to be believed, he would have purchased the stamp paper in his name. So purchase of stamp paper in his name is sought to be made out as a ground to prove the due execution of the sale deed. If that is the argument it could be quite argued that normally the seller would not pay from his pocket to purchase the stamp. Then the consideration for the sale would be only Rs. 3,600/-. It is not the case of the defendant that it was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff has to bear the stamp duty and he has to purchase the stamp paper. This argument is now canvassed before this Court and it creates doubt in the mind of the Court about the nature of the transaction and it also supports the case of the plaintiff that he has been victim of fraud and mis-representation. Again we find in the second page where an endorsement is made, as rightly pointed by the trial Court, (vernacular matter not given). It is left blank. 14. Section 58(C) of the Registration Act 1908 provides on every document admitted to registration, there shall be endorsement from time to time any payment of money or delivery of goods made in the presence of the registering officer with reference to the execution of the document, and any admission of receipt of consideration, in whole or in part, made in his presence in reference to such execution. The endorsement found herein do not satisfy this requirement because said endorsement do not say who paid the money to whom. On the contrary, below the first thumb impression of the defendant an endorsement has been put "(vernacular matter not given)". In the bottom we find the signature of the plaintiff. The endorsement found herein do not satisfy this requirement because said endorsement do not say who paid the money to whom. On the contrary, below the first thumb impression of the defendant an endorsement has been put "(vernacular matter not given)". In the bottom we find the signature of the plaintiff. From this it is sought to be argued that there is a clear admission of receipt of consideration by the plaintiff from the defendant. The law do not provide for acknowledgement of consideration by the executant of the document before the Sub-Registrar. What the law requires is, Sub-Registrar has to make an endorsement stating what is the amount paid in his presence and by whom to whom. Below that endorsement, finds an LTM. Normally after taking LTM, signature of that person is also taken. Now, therefore, it is clear, this endorsement which is above the LTM, is relied on to prove the fact that the plaintiff has admitted the receipt of consideration. This coupled with the fact that on 08/03/1990, Sub-Registrar wrote a letter to the plaintiff calling upon him to the Office to affix his signature which he has forgotten to take at the time of the registration, clearly proves the case of collusion pleaded by the plaintiff. Yet another circumstance why the trial Court and this Court is of the view that the evidence on record adduced by the defendant and his witnesses shows prior to the execution of the sale deed there was an agreement of sale. In one breathe it is stated, the agreement was on 05/02/1990. In another breath they say, it is about 4 or 5 days prior to that day. But strangely in the plaint filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 329/1990 it is specifically pleaded that after payment of Rs. 2,000/- in the presence of elders, it was agreed that the balance amount has to be paid at the time of registration and the plaintiff started demanding the balance amount and thus the sale deed came to be executed. If the agreement of sale is one day prior to 06/02/1990, the question of demand would not arise. 2,000/- in the presence of elders, it was agreed that the balance amount has to be paid at the time of registration and the plaintiff started demanding the balance amount and thus the sale deed came to be executed. If the agreement of sale is one day prior to 06/02/1990, the question of demand would not arise. The agreement of sale is not produced and that supports the case of the plaintiff that he had no intention of selling, he had not received any amount on the date of sale deed, he has not delivered possession and he went to Sub-Registrar's office to attest the document and not to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant. In fact the defendant and his witnesses are inconsistent about the statement regarding delivery of possession. At one breath they say possession is delivered under the agreement of sale and Rs. 2,000/- is paid. In the sale deed the averment is, possession is delivered on the date of the sale deed. It is these factors which are taken note of by the Court below to conclude that the case of fraud and misrepresentation pleaded by the plaintiff is established. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that specific plea of the plaintiff is that he was forcibly taken to the Sub-Registrar's office and signature is taken to the sale deed. Whereas in evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses, there is no whisper about forcibly taking the plaintiff to the Sub-Registrar's office. It is true that there is no evidence of force but the evidence of record shows when the plaintiff was taken to the sub-registrar's office, though he was not willing, he was persuaded that he being very respectable man/swami and on the advice of elders and wel-wishers, he went to the sub-Registrar's office. So what probably they meant in the pleading was though he was not willing to go, he was persuaded or pressurized to go. It is not force. No force is used. If we read the entire pleading and the evidence on record inproper perspective, the word force used in the pleading appears to be not the proper word to be used. It is well settled that the word in a pleading or evidence, cannot be read as a word in a statute. It is not force. No force is used. If we read the entire pleading and the evidence on record inproper perspective, the word force used in the pleading appears to be not the proper word to be used. It is well settled that the word in a pleading or evidence, cannot be read as a word in a statute. The evidence on record makes it very clear how the transaction has taken place, how the people have conducted themselves and what they really meant. The lower appellate Court committed no error in holding that the case of the plaintiff regarding fraud and misrepresentation is established. 16. From the aforesaid material on record, I am satisfied that the Courts below committed no illegality in appreciating the pleading and in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and in dismissing the suit of the defendant. Now when the defendants contend he has demolished the bund dividing the parties and he is cultivating the lands which has fell under the cover of a common order granted in the suit, even today, the plaintiff is not in possession, defendant is in possession. The possession obtained under the cover of injunction order would not enure to his benefit, as the sale deed is null and void and that the plaintiff is declared to be owner of the property, the defendant does not have any right, title or interest over the property and since he is in possession, he has to deliver the possession to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is not only entitled to declaration but also for a decree of possession. Accordingly, I pass the following order: Appeals are dismissed. Suit of the plaintiff O.S. 229/1990 is decreed including the decree for possession as prayed for and the suit of the defendant in O.S. No. 329/1990 is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.