JUDGMENT The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Civil Suit No.20/2005, which was pending in the Court of District Judge-1, Panaji. The suit of appellant filed for relief of specific performance of contract and in alternative for the return of consideration amount is dismissed by the trial Court. Learned Counsel for the appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 are heard. 2. Respondent no.1 was duly served, but she did not turn up. The learned Additional Government Advocate remained present, but there was no interest of Additional Government Advocate, State in the present matter. 3. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows: The suit is filed in respect of property bearing survey no.40/2 admeasuring 4500 square metres situated at Village Ponda (bearing matriz no.575) and old cadastral survey no.17/3 having area of 12300 square metres (together bearing matriz no.429) situated at Khadpabandh, Ponda within jurisdiction of Ponda Municipality, property bearing survey no.14 (new) of Ponda (bearing matriz no.421 and 422) from Ponda Municipality having area of 17792 square metres. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that under two separate registered agreements of sale dated 18/11/1999 and 23/11/1999, the defendant no.1 agreed to sell the suit property to him as the holder of power of attorney of her mother. It is contended that survey no.40/2, 17/3 and 14/0 were standing in the name of the mother of defendant no.1. According to plaintiff, he had paid most of the consideration in respect of transaction and out of Rs.5 lacs he had paid Rs.4.5 lacs to defendant no.1 as the advance consideration and she had accepted it for her parents. Defendants no.2 & 3 were formal parties as they were expected to register the sale deeds, if executed in future. They are made respondents no.2 & 3 in this proceeding. 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the month of March, 2005, he learnt that defendant no.1 had either sold some portion of the suit property or she was attempting to sell the suit property to third party. According to the plaintiff, under the agreement, he had got the possession of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that as defendant no.1 was not ready to execute the sale deed, he issued notice to her and asked her to execute the sale deeds. According to the plaintiff, under the agreement, he had got the possession of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that as defendant no.1 was not ready to execute the sale deed, he issued notice to her and asked her to execute the sale deeds. He has contended that he had published notice in respect of aforesaid transaction in daily newspaper 'Herald'. It is contended that as defendant no.1 did not respond, he was constrained to file the suit. According to him, the cause of action arose in the month of March, 2005 when he learnt that the defendant no.1 was trying to transfer the suit property to third party. It is contended that due to this circumstance the suit is within limitation. 6. In the suit, plaintiff has prayed for relief of specific performance of contract mentioned in aforesaid two agreements and alternatively he has prayed for relief of return of aforesaid amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. He has also prayed for relief of injunction to protect his possession. 7. Defendant no.1 filed written statement and contested the suit. It is her case that her parents were never owners of property bearing survey no.40/2 described in plaint and her maternal uncles are the owners of this property. It is her case that since 1946 her maternal uncles are in possession of this property and there was no question of her making agreement with plaintiff to sell the property. It is her case that survey no.5 and 17 belong to her mother and she also got the property from her parents and so defendant no.1 had no right to sell this property. It is contended that survey no.14 (old no.3) also belongs to her maternal uncle and her parents have no concern with this property. It is the case of defendant no.1 that in the year 1995, she was in need of job and so she approached plaintiff who was doing some business. According to defendant no.1 the plaintiff was dealing in consumer goods, video cassettes, public telephone and he was also running a travel agency by name A.K. Enterprises. It is her case that plaintiff gave her job and she started working in the office of plaintiff from June, 1995 as she was assured monthly salary of Rs.4,000/-. 8. According to defendant no.1 the plaintiff was dealing in consumer goods, video cassettes, public telephone and he was also running a travel agency by name A.K. Enterprises. It is her case that plaintiff gave her job and she started working in the office of plaintiff from June, 1995 as she was assured monthly salary of Rs.4,000/-. 8. It is the case of defendant no.1 that by using sweet tongue and the influence as employer the plaintiff made friendship with her and gave promise of marriage to her. It is her case that by giving such promise he developed relationship with her. It is the case of defendant no.1 that her parents had become old and her father had undergone operation in respect of cataract. It is her case that in view of this, parents of defendant no.1 executed power of attorney in her favour in the year 1998. It is her case that she was expected to take care of their property. It is her case that plaintiff used his influence over her and also over her parents and he obtained power of attorney in respect of the property. It is her case that plaintiff wanted to grab properties of her parents and her maternal uncle and with that intention he created and collected some record. It is her case that plaintiff had even filed a suit in the Court on the basis of that record. 9. It is the case of defendant no.1 that plaintiff used his influence and by blackmailing her he got executed sale deed in respect of plots of her family from Curti, Ponda in favour of third parties. It is her case that plaintiff collected consideration of Rs.10 lacs though the price was shown less in the documents. It is her case that when she insisted for giving consideration to her, plaintiff issued cheque of Rs.10 lacs through his wife. It is her case that the cheque bounced and in respect of this incident she has filed a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the plaintiff. 10. It is the case of defendant no.1 that by pretending that he loved defendant no.1, the plaintiff exploited her both sexually and financially. It is her case that plaintiff had given promise of marriage with her and due to the influence exercised by the plaintiff she succumbed to the pressure. 10. It is the case of defendant no.1 that by pretending that he loved defendant no.1, the plaintiff exploited her both sexually and financially. It is her case that plaintiff had given promise of marriage with her and due to the influence exercised by the plaintiff she succumbed to the pressure. It is her case that plaintiff had taken some nude photographs of her and on that basis plaintiff was blackmailing her. It is her case that plaintiff had given threat of making photographs public and under the said threat she was compelled to sell the aforesaid plots. 11. It is the case of defendant no.1 that the plots were of her father and when her father learnt about the aforesaid transaction, he drove defendant no.1 and her mother out of his house. It is her case that plaintiff then created show that he was giving shelter to defendant no.1 and her mother and for that he made some arrangement of their stay at Vasco. It is the case of defendant no.1 that in the month of May, 2000, plaintiff took defendant no.1 to Belgaum (Karnataka) and created show that he was marring with her. It is her case that when she asked for marriage document, plaintiff said that he destroyed that document. It is her case that by giving threats and blackmailing, plaintiff took her gold ornaments worth rupees 40 to 50 thousand and gold ornaments weighing 30 tollas of her mother. 12. It is the case of defendant no.1 that when she was driven out of the house by her father, plaintiff gave cruel treatment to her. It is her case that due to the conduct of the plaintiff her parents died in the year 2004. It is her case that plaintiff continued to give her ill treatment and then Crime was registered for offences punishable under Sections 342,276,323,504,420 of IPC against the plaintiff. The charge sheet was also filed in this crime. 13. It is the case of defendant no.1 that for grabbing the property, the plaintiff obtained her signatures on some documents including two disputed agreements for sale. It is her case that she had given the signatures due to undue influence of plaintiff and due to the blackmailing which he was doing by using aforesaid circumstances. 14. 13. It is the case of defendant no.1 that for grabbing the property, the plaintiff obtained her signatures on some documents including two disputed agreements for sale. It is her case that she had given the signatures due to undue influence of plaintiff and due to the blackmailing which he was doing by using aforesaid circumstances. 14. It is the case of defendant no.1 that much prior to dates of aforesaid two disputed agreements for sale, around 25 plots were sold by her mother and maternal uncles and so there was no question of making agreement of sale in respect of those plots in favour of plaintiff. She denied the case of the plaintiff that possession of property of the two documents was handed over to the plaintiff. She prays for dismissal of the suit. 15. Trial Court framed two issues like, one whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of contract and second whether defendant proves that agreement was void. 16. The plaintiff has examined himself and he has produced the two disputed documents at Exhibit 24 and 25. The evidence in chief is as per the contents of the plaint. The evidence in cross-examination of the plaintiff shows that such a witness cannot be believed. First time in the cross-examination he admitted that he had relations with defendant no.1. He has given evidence that he had married with defendant no.1 and prior to that defendant no.1 was working in his office. The evidence shows that father of defendant no.1 had started leaving separate from defendant no.1 due to the transactions made in respect of aforesaid plots. His evidence shows that he had found shelter for defendant no.1 and her mother. His evidence shows that in respect of the suit property he had obtained power of attorney from defendant no.1 and her mother. These documents of power of attorney were executed prior to the dates of aforesaid two agreements. 17. In the cross-examination, at one place, plaintiff has deposed that he gave the consideration to defendant no.1 at one time, at the time of the agreement and at other place he has deposed that he had obtained separate receipt by making payment. He has deposed that the said receipt is missing. Admittedly, the consideration was not paid before Sub-registrar and there is no such endorsement of the Sub-registrar on the disputed documents. He has deposed that the said receipt is missing. Admittedly, the consideration was not paid before Sub-registrar and there is no such endorsement of the Sub-registrar on the disputed documents. At one place the plaintiff tried to say that he had withdrawn the amount for giving the consideration from bank and at other place he deposed that he had withdrawn such amount about 2 to 3 years prior to the date of agreement. He has deposed that he was having such amount with him as he had sold some plots two years prior to the date of agreement. The cross-examination shows that he was not ready to produce the record of such transaction or an account book or account extracted from any bank to show that he was having such amount at the relevant time. The aforesaid records show that in favour of plaintiff power of attorney was already executed by defendant no.1 and even her parents and no consideration was taken by them for execution of those documents. In view of all these circumstances, the case of plaintiff that he had paid the consideration does not appear to be probable in nature. On the contrary, the circumstances have created probability that the plaintiff wanted to bring defendant no.1 in trouble, by asking her to execute sale deeds in favour of the third parties on the basis of two disputed documents. 18. The aforesaid circumstances admitted by plaintiff are not consistent with the contents of the documents. The further evidence of plaintiff shows that he had not seen the revenue record in respect of the property mentioned in the two disputed documents. He had not visited the suit property to ascertain the possession or the existence of the suit property. In cross-examination, the plaintiff has specifically admitted that the possession was not given to him under the aforesaid disputed documents by defendant no.1 or her parents. His evidence shows that he subsequently visited the property and saw that the plots of the property were in the possession of the third parties and they had made constructions over those plots. In the legal notice, the plaintiff had contended that the possession was given after 8 days of the documents to him. The agreements show that separate letter of possession was to be prepared. In the legal notice, the plaintiff had contended that the possession was given after 8 days of the documents to him. The agreements show that separate letter of possession was to be prepared. No such letter is produced and in the evidence, plaintiff has admitted that he did not get the possession. These circumstances create probability that the documents are sham. 19. The evidence of defendant no.1 is as per the contents of the written statement. In support of her case, copies of sale deeds made in favour of third parties by her mother and her relatives, copies of sale deeds of 1981, 1992, 1993, etc. (Exhibit 41 to 45) are produced. She has also produced the record like copy of power of attorney executed by her father in favour of plaintiff (Exhibit 39). It is brought on record in the cross-examination that father of defendant no.1 had filed suit against defendant no.1 and also plaintiff in 1999 as the consideration in respect of two plots from Curti was not handed over to him. This evidence is also consistent with the case of defendant o.1 that her father had driven her out of the house due to such conduct. The evidence of plaintiff shows that the defendant no.1 was living with him at the relevant time. If that was the case, it was necessary for the plaintiff to say as to what was done by defendant no.1 with Rs.4.5 lac, if that was really given to her. Admittedly, the plaintiff filed the income tax returns but he did not show the payment of Rs.4.5 lacs to defendant no.1 in the returns. 20. The defendant no.1 has examined one ex Talathi Mr. Raya Dessai to prove that some portions of suit property from Khadpabandh were sold in 1976, 1992, etc. The evidence of this witness shows that his son had also purchased one plot from this property. 21. The contents of the two disputed documents show that out of total consideration of Rs.5 lacs the amount of Rs.4.5 lacs was shown to be given to defendant no.1. If most of the consideration was given then there was no reason not to execute the sale deeds. 21. The contents of the two disputed documents show that out of total consideration of Rs.5 lacs the amount of Rs.4.5 lacs was shown to be given to defendant no.1. If most of the consideration was given then there was no reason not to execute the sale deeds. It is already observed that the plaintiff probably wanted to see that the sale deeds of suit property are executed by defendant no.1 as the property was not standing in her name and some properties were not standing in the name of her parents also. In agreements, it is mentioned that the transaction of sale was to be completed within three years from the date of the agreement. The plaintiff did not take place for execution of sale deed till the year 2005. It appears that when defendant no.1 took steps like approaching police against plaintiff, the plaintiff took the action like filing of suit on the basis of disputed documents. 22. The documents like power of attorney dated 18/09/1995, 12/10/1998 and 5/01/1999 show that the mother of defendant no.1 and her parents had together executed power of attorneys in favour of plaintiff and they had given the power to plaintiff to sell the property. It is already observed that no consideration was accepted by them. Thus, there was no question of giving of consideration by plaintiff either to defendant no.1 or his parents and it is clear that only with the aforesaid ulterior motive the plaintiff got executed the two disputed documents from defendant no.1. 23. The defendant no.1 has relied on some more documents like Form-I and Form-XIV in respect of survey no.17/3. This form shows that property is standing in the name of Kaji, Mussabi, Sarvottam Narcinha Kamat, Mogale Narasinha Kamat, Imamsab Mugutsab Gadad. Similarly, form in respect of property no.40/2 shows that property standing in the name of Kazi Mohammad Pirsab, Kazi Mahamad Kadirsab, M/s. Mahadev Saw Mill, Govt. of Goa Executive Engineer W.D. III, Water Resources Dept., Ponda Goa. Similarly, the form in respect of survey no.14/0 shows that this property is standing in the name of Kaji Mamod Pirsaib and 29 other persons. There is copy of another sale deed in respect of cadastral survey no.5 old (17 new) plot no.13 showing that it was sold by Smt. Massabi Kazi, mother of defendant no.1 on 6/09/1976. There is one more sale deed of 1985. There is copy of another sale deed in respect of cadastral survey no.5 old (17 new) plot no.13 showing that it was sold by Smt. Massabi Kazi, mother of defendant no.1 on 6/09/1976. There is one more sale deed of 1985. There are more agreements of sale made by this lady in favour of third party which are in respect of survey no.17/3 and there are many such copies of agreements of 1992. This record and the admissions given by the plaintiff in cross-examination show that most of the property mentioned in the disputed documents was not owned by the defendant no.1 or her parents at the relevant time and there was no question of making agreement by defendant no.1 in favour of plaintiff. This submission also supports that the agreement was sham. The aforesaid circumstances are sufficient to prove the case of defendant no.1 on preponderance of probability. It is clear that defendant no.1 and her parents were signing on any documents which the plaintiff was bringing to them. As there are aforesaid circumstances and as there is no evidence on passing of consideration, this Court holds that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the disputed documents are sham and they were obtained by using undue influence. It is already observed that the plaintiff came to the Court very late, in the year 2005 only after starting of the dispute and this circumstance also supports the case of the defendant no.1 that the agreement was not to be acted upon. 24. In view of the record and circumstances discussed, this Court holds that the alternative relief of return of amount also cannot be given to the plaintiff. Thus, the trial Court has rightly answered both the issues against the plaintiff. This Court finds no reason to interfere in the decision of the trial Court. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.