JUDGMENT : M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in OS No. 57 of 1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram (for short, 'the trial Court'), preferred this appeal against the impugned decree and judgment dated 28.3.1990, wherein the suit filed for specific performance was dismissed. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants before the trial Court and they will hereinafter be referred as the plaintiff and the defendants for convenience. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale alleging that the 1st defendant is the owner of the schedule property, agreed to sell the same for a consideration of Rs. 1,02,000/- and executed an agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983 in favour of the plaintiff on receiving advance of Rs. 10,000/-. It is further agreed under the agreement of sale that the 1st defendant has to execute one or more sale deeds either in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of his nominee on receipt of balance of consideration before Sub-Registrar and possession of the property be delivered on the date of registration of sale deed. On the same day, the 1st defendant handed over letter dated 22.1.1983 executed by the 9th defendant, who is the tenant under the 1st defendant, relinquishing his right of tenancy in the schedule property receiving Rs. 3,000/- from the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant harvested the crop. Despite demands of the plaintiff to execute registered sale deed, the 1st defendant did not execute registered sale deed and postponed the same. In course of time, the agreement of sale was misplaced and could not be traced. Consequently, the plaintiff lost custody of the agreement of sale dated 24.1.1983 and even after misplacement of the agreement of sale, the 1st defendant received Rs. 5,000/- on 26.2.1983 and passed a receipt acknowledging execution of the agreement of sale dated 24.1.1983 and also acknowledged receipt of Rs. 10,000/- as advance under agreement dated 24.1.1983. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of agreement but the 1st defendant avoided to receive the balance of sale consideration and execute registered sale deed. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the husband of the 3rd defendant colluded together to defeat the rights of the plaintiff under agreement to sell taking advantage of missing of the agreement to sell. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the husband of the 3rd defendant colluded together to defeat the rights of the plaintiff under agreement to sell taking advantage of missing of the agreement to sell. Thereupon, the plaintiff got issued notice dated 19.4.1983 to the 2nd defendant and husband of the 3rd defendant informing about obtaining agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983 marking copy to the 1st defendant also but they did not receive the said notice and got returned. Later, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with the collusion of husband of the 3rd defendant by name Pinnamraju Purushotham Varma @ Baburao colluded together and brought into existence several sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 8 in respect of part of the schedule property and those sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell. 2. Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 9 filed written statement denying the material allegations of the plaint inter alia contending that husband of the 3rd defendant Pinnamraju Purushotham Varma @ Baburao and the plaintiff have approached the 1st defendant to purchase the plaint schedule property as the plaintiff represented that the 1st defendant was his relative. The plaintiff wanted to purchase item No. 2 of the plaint schedule and the husband of the 3rd defendant intended to purchase item No. 1 of the schedule property. The bargain was settled and the 1st defendant agreed to sell item No. 1 to the husband of the 3rd defendant for Rs. 8,721/- and item No. 2 to the plaintiff for Rs. 14,790/- and received advance of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 9,000/- from Pinnamraju Purushotham Varma @ Baburao and the plaintiff respectively. The 1st defendant executed agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983 in favour of the plaintiff and Pinnamraju Purushotham Varma @ Baburao, husband of the 3rd defendant. It is further agreed that the balance of sale consideration shall be paid within 5 months from the date of agreement to sell and obtain registered sale deed by the plaintiff and Pinnamraju Purushotham Varma @ Baburao in their names or in the name of their nominees. Thus, the plaintiff purchased only item No. 2 of the schedule property under agreement to sell and the alleged agreement to sell pleaded by the plaintiff dated 24.1.1983 is false and baseless. The 2nd defendant paid Rs. Thus, the plaintiff purchased only item No. 2 of the schedule property under agreement to sell and the alleged agreement to sell pleaded by the plaintiff dated 24.1.1983 is false and baseless. The 2nd defendant paid Rs. 28,305/- to the 1st defendant through Pinnamraju Purushotham Varma @ Baburao and took possession of Ac.0.55 cents out of item No. 1 of the plaint schedule property from the 9th defendant who was the tenant under the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant executed registered sale deed dated 30.5.1983 in favour of the 2nd defendant. Pinnamraju Purushotham Varma @ Baburao paid Rs. 14,205/- besides advance of Rs. 9,000/- on behalf of his wife, the 3rd defendant, and obtained possession of Ac.0.45 1/2 cents out of item No. 1 of the schedule property from the 9th defendant, who was the tenant under the 1st defendant, on the basis of registered sale deed dated 30.5.1983 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant. Similarly, the 4th defendant paid Rs. 20,400/-, the 5th defendant paid Rs. 3,570/-, the 6th defendant paid Rs. 3,315/- and the 8th defendant paid Rs. 5,100/- through Pinnamraju Purushotham Varma @ Baburao to the 1st defendant and obtained registered sale deeds for an extent of Ac.0.40 cents, Ac.0.07 cents, Ac.0.06 1/2 cents and Ac.0.10 cents respectively. Since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of the land purchased by them. The purchase of land by defendant Nos. 2 to 8 from the 1st defendant is within the knowledge of the plaintiff but invented a story that sale deeds are not binding on him. The 3rd defendant sold Ac.0.30 cents out the property purchased by her to one P. Suryavathi and the said Suryavathi is a necessary party to the suit and finally prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. Defendant Nos. 10, 11 and 14, who were impleaded as legal-heirs of the deceased 1st defendant, filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 9. 3. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the sale agreement dated 24.1.1983 set up by plaintiff is true and whether it is lost? (2) Whether sale agreement dated 24.1.1983 set up by 2nd defendant is true and binding on plaintiff? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance? (4) To what relief? 4. (2) Whether sale agreement dated 24.1.1983 set up by 2nd defendant is true and binding on plaintiff? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance? (4) To what relief? 4. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, PWs. 1 to 9 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of defendants, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B9. 5. Upon hearing argument of both Counsel and considering oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court disbelieved loss of agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983 pleaded by the plaintiff and issue No. 1 was held against the plaintiff. Similarly, agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983 pleaded by the 2nd defendant was also disbelieved and held issue No. 2 against the defendants. As a sequel of finding on issue No. 1, issue No. 3 was held against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. 6. Though issue No. 2 was held against the defendants disbelieving the agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983, the defendants did not prefer any appeal against the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 2 and allowed to attain finality of the finding on issue No. 2 whereas the unsuccessful plaintiff, aggrieved by the findings recorded on issue Nos. 1 and 3, preferred the present appeal on various grounds mainly contending as follows: (a) The trial Court framed issue No. 1 regarding the factum of execution of agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983 and its loss but erroneously arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish loss of agreement to sell and held issue No. 1 against the plaintiff erroneously; (b) When the agreement set up by the defendants marked as Ex.B1 dated 24.1.1983 is disbelieved as it is fabricated, the trial Court ought to have upheld the contentions of the plaintiff; (c) The trial Court, on erroneous appreciation of evidence, more particularly the oral evidence of PWs. 1 to 5 coupled with Ex.A4, wherein the 1st defendant acknowledged execution of agreement to sell and the oral evidence on record proved the execution of agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983 agreeing to sell the entire schedule property under agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff also proved the loss of agreement by examining the witnesses concerned but unfortunately, did not appreciate the oral evidence in proper perspective and wrongly dismissed the suit; and (d) Voluminous documentary evidence including payment of Rs. 5,000/- under Ex.A4 and handing over of letter executed by the 9th defendant relinquishing his tenancy right on receipt of Rs. 3,000/- from the 1st defendant is another strong circumstance to believe the agreement to sell reduced into writing between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant but on wrong appreciation of evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit and finally prayed to allow the appeal setting aside the impugned decree and judgment of the trial Court and pass a decree granting the relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff. 7. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, while reiterating the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal and grounds urged before the trial Court seeking specific performance, drew the attention of this Court to the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 9 and the facts elicited in the cross-examination of DWs.1 to 5 and finally prayed to allow the appeal granting a decree for specific performance by setting aside the impugned decree and judgment of the trial Court whereas learned Counsel for the respondents-defendants argued totally in support of the findings recorded by the trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Considering rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the 1st defendant executed agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the schedule property, if so, whether the plaintiff lost the agreement before filing the suit? (2) Whether the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff to prove the agreement to sell and its loss is admissible under law? (3) Whether the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance directing defendant Nos. (2) Whether the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff to prove the agreement to sell and its loss is admissible under law? (3) Whether the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance directing defendant Nos. 10 to 14, being the legal-heirs of the deceased 1st defendant, to execute registered sale deed along with defendant Nos. 2 to 9 being the subsequent purchasers? 9. This Court, being the Court of first appeal, is under an obligation to reappraise the entire oral and documentary evidence to come to an independent conclusion notwithstanding the findings recorded by the trial Court. Therefore, I would like to reappraise entire oral and documentary evidence to come to an independent conclusion uninfluenced by the findings recorded by the trial Court. 10. In Re. Point Nos. 1 and 2: The suit is filed for specific performance based on agreement to sell allegedly executed by the 1st defendant dated 24.1.1983 agreeing to sell the schedule property for a total sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- and received advance of sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. So, according to the plaintiff, the agreement was reduced into writing. When once disposition of the property is reduced into writing, the suit document is a primary evidence required to be produced to prove the transaction of agreement to sell in view of Section 62 of Indian Evidence Act as it is a primary evidence unless the plaintiff is permitted to adduce secondary evidence subject to satisfying the conditions required to prove a fact by adducing secondary evidence. Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act deals with the circumstances where a party can be permitted to produce secondary evidence relating to document. However, this will be discussed at appropriate stage. 11. According to the plaintiff, the agreement to sell was misplaced and it is beyond the reach of the plaintiff. Therefore, the agreement to sell could not be produced. However, he relied on Ex.A4 styling it as a receipt evidencing payment of Rs. 5,000/- on 26.2.1983, wherein the deceased 1st defendant acknowledged execution of agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983 agreeing to sell Acs.2.00 cents of land within the limits of Mummidivaram Grampanchayat for Rs. 1,02,000/- on receipt of Rs. 10,000/- as advance while acknowledging receipt of Rs. 5,000/- on the date of execution of Ex.A4. 5,000/- on 26.2.1983, wherein the deceased 1st defendant acknowledged execution of agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983 agreeing to sell Acs.2.00 cents of land within the limits of Mummidivaram Grampanchayat for Rs. 1,02,000/- on receipt of Rs. 10,000/- as advance while acknowledging receipt of Rs. 5,000/- on the date of execution of Ex.A4. Besides Ex.A4, the plaintiff also relied on Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is postcard (letter) dated 22.12.1982 addressed to Atchaiah, wherein he was requested to come along with the plaintiff but there is no reference about negotiations regarding sale of property. Similarly, Ex.A2 is another letter, wherein it was informed to the plaintiff that the brother of the 1st defendant relinquished his tenancy right in the schedule property and requested him to come to Mummidivaram expecting him to meet Kadali Atchaiah who addressed the letter. Ex.A3 is letter relinquishing the right of tenancy dated 22.1.1983. Exs.A2 and A3 appear to have been written on the same day. However, these two documents do not disclose anything about negotiations for sale of property by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff. In fact, Atchaiah is neither a party to the alleged agreement to sell nor a party to the suit. Therefore, whatever was written in Ex.A2 is not binding on the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. Exs.A1 and A2 were written by Kadali Atchaiah to the 1st defendant and the plaintiff respectively but Atchaiah is no way concerned to the transaction allegedly covered by the agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983. Therefore, those letters would not come to the assistance of the plaintiff to prove the execution of agreement to sell. However, Ex.A4 is a crucial document, wherein the 1st defendant allegedly acknowledged execution of agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983 for sale of Acs.2.00 cents of agricultural land at Mummidivaram for Rs. 1,02,000/- and receipt of advance of Rs. 10,000/- while receiving Rs. 5,000/- on 26.2.1983. This letter marked as Ex.A4 is in dispute. Ex.A4 was attested by K.B. Naidu and G. Satyanarayana and was scribed by T. Ramanatham, resident of Kakinada. Thus, the plaintiff totally relied on Ex.A4 and the oral evidence of attesters and scribed of agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983. 12. 10,000/- while receiving Rs. 5,000/- on 26.2.1983. This letter marked as Ex.A4 is in dispute. Ex.A4 was attested by K.B. Naidu and G. Satyanarayana and was scribed by T. Ramanatham, resident of Kakinada. Thus, the plaintiff totally relied on Ex.A4 and the oral evidence of attesters and scribed of agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983. 12. Since the 1st defendant did not come forward to execute registered sale deed, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice marked as Ex.A5 and for the first time, the plaintiff disclosed about missing or loss of agreement in the 2nd para of the registered notice. Ex.A5 is totally silent as to the date of missing or loss of custody of agreement to sell allegedly executed on 24.1.1983 by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff. A notice was received by Pinnamraju Purushotham Varma @ Baburao under Ex.A6 but no evidence is produced about acknowledging receipt of Ex.A5 by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 but produced the returned registered notices marked as Exs.A7 and A8 by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Thus, the documentary evidence on record proves that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice marked as Ex.A5. Despite notice, the 1st defendant did not execute registered sale deed receiving balance of sale consideration. However, there are no specific details about manner of loss of custody or missing of agreement to sell supra. 13. It is the case of the plaintiff from the beginning that the agreement to sell was misplaced and could not be traced. Relevant pleading at Page No. 3 of the plaint is extracted herein for better appreciation: "The plaintiff was demanding the 1st defendant to execute sale deed but the 1st defendant was postponing. The agreement to sell was misplaced and could not be traced. The plaintiff lost the custody of the agreement to sell referred above. Even after missing of the agreement to sell, as the 1st defendant required some money, the plaintiff paid Rs. 5,000/- on 26.2.1983 to the 1st defendant and obtained receipt dated 26.2.1983, wherein the 1st defendant acknowledged execution of agreement to sell on 24.1.1983 in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of Rs. Even after missing of the agreement to sell, as the 1st defendant required some money, the plaintiff paid Rs. 5,000/- on 26.2.1983 to the 1st defendant and obtained receipt dated 26.2.1983, wherein the 1st defendant acknowledged execution of agreement to sell on 24.1.1983 in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of Rs. 10,000/- as advance." From the specific pleading raised in Para No. 4 at Page No. 3 of the plaint extracted above, it is clear that by 26.2.1983, the agreement was misplaced and the plaintiff lost custody of the agreement to sell but curiously, the plaintiff paid Rs. 5,000/- without obtaining any fresh agreement and it is totally against human conduct and improbable to the natural conduct of a human being. If really the agreement was lost or misplaced and could not be traced, instead of obtaining receipt marked as Ex.A4, the plaintiff would have obtained a fresh agreement to sell and failure to obtain a fresh agreement to sell on the alleged date of demand of Rs. 5,000/- is a strong doubtful circumstance. Even at the time of execution of Ex.A4, the plaintiff did not disclose about loss or misplacing of agreement to sell to the 1st defendant. Therefore, the improper and improbable conduct of the plaintiff creates any amount of doubt about loss or misplacing of the agreement to sell. When I advert to the contents of Para No. 9 of the plaint pertaining to cause of action, there is no whisper about missing or loss of custody of agreement to sell which is part of cause of action since the said fact is required to be proved by the plaintiff to obtain the relief of specific performance. 14. The defendants denied execution of agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983. The examination in chief of PW1 is very specific that he lost the agreement at Mummidivaram while he was proceeding to Kakinada on 26.2.1983 as it was kept in a bag and sleeping in the coconut shop of the 2nd defendant at Mummidivaram keeping the bag under his head and in the meanwhile, when bus came, he hurriedly rushed to the bus leaving the bag there itself. Thus, he missed the bag containing the agreement to sell. He was there at Kakinada on 24.1.1983 from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., in the house of the 1st defendant. Thus, he missed the bag containing the agreement to sell. He was there at Kakinada on 24.1.1983 from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., in the house of the 1st defendant. From this piece of evidence, it is clear that the bag containing agreement to sell was left at the coconut shop of the 2nd defendant when he hurriedly went to catch the bus to go to Kakinada from Mummidivaram. In the cross-examination, learned Counsel for the defendants could elicit certain facts about the conduct of PW1 in maintaining silence and the specific admissions are extracted hereunder for better appreciation: "At Kakinada, I noticed that I lost away my agreement. By the time I went to Kakinada, I was under the impression that I have forgotten the bag at the shop while waiting for bus. I obtained receipt for Rs. 5,000/- as it is necessary for me. After 3 or 4 months, I have decided that I have lost away the bag along with the agreement. I have given complaint also to police about loss of agreement. I did not get it published in any newspaper about loss of agreement. I informed the 1st defendant about loss of agreement but I did not ask him to re-execute another agreement." This piece of evidence indicates the callus conduct of the plaintiff. When PW1 went to Kakinada and paid Rs. 5,000/- allegedly to the 1st defendant, he would have at least noticed about loss of agreement. Even according to his admission, he noticed about missing of agreement but no complaint was given to police and though contended that he gave report to police but no material is brought on record to substantiate his contention. If really PW1 lost the agreement to sell, he would not have waited for 3 or 4 days without searching for the same. Therefore, maintaining silence for 3 or 4 days to come to conclusion that he lost the agreement itself suggests that he is so negligent and the conduct is improbable to the natural conduct of a human being. If really the plaintiff had no knowledge about loss of agreement, question of obtaining receipt, which contains acknowledgement of execution of agreement to sell receiving Rs. 10,000/- by the 1st defendant, does not arise. It also creates any amount of doubt about loss of agreement to sell. If really the plaintiff had no knowledge about loss of agreement, question of obtaining receipt, which contains acknowledgement of execution of agreement to sell receiving Rs. 10,000/- by the 1st defendant, does not arise. It also creates any amount of doubt about loss of agreement to sell. At Page No. 8 of cross-examination, PW1 further admitted that he has taken Rs. 10,000/- along with him to Kakinada. When he approached the 1st defendant but the cash was not carried from his house to Kakinada. This piece of evidence also creates any amount of suspicion regarding carrying cash of Rs. 10,000/-, payment of Rs. 5,000/- to the 1st defendant and obtaining Ex.A4 receipt. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 on record did not disclose the serious and honest attempt made by him to search the alleged loss of agreement to sell. 15. The plaintiff also examined PW2, who is the younger brother of the 9th defendant, who allegedly cultivated the land on lease obtaining from the 1st defendant. He is the person who addressed letters Exs.A1 and A2 obviously for different reasons. He spoke about the negotiations for purchase of the land and also execution of agreement to sell by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff for sale of the schedule property on receipt of Rs. 10,000/- as advance of sale consideration and he attested the agreement to sell. In the cross-examination at Page No. 4, 7th line onwards from top, he admitted that after he went there, bargain was settled and PW1 paid advance of Rs. 10,000/-. The bargain was settled at 4 p.m., the 1st defendant called for scribe, the scribe came there, prepared agreement to sell on stamp paper containing two stamp papers and the 1st defendant signed thereon. At best, the evidence of PW2 to some extent assists the plaintiff to prove execution of agreement to sell. PW3 is scribe of the document, who is a licensed document writer, testified about scribing of the agreement to sell allegedly executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff for sale of Acs.2.00 cents of land on receipt of Rs. 10,000/- as advance and he was also the scribe of Ex.A4. The examination in chief of PW1 is useful to prove execution of agreement to sell and Ex.A4. 10,000/- as advance and he was also the scribe of Ex.A4. The examination in chief of PW1 is useful to prove execution of agreement to sell and Ex.A4. PW3, in his cross-examination, admitted that he went to the house of the 1st defendant at about 4 or 4.30 p.m. and by that time, the bargain was settled already whereas the evidence of PW2 is somewhat different and according to him, the bargain was settled at 4 p.m. According to the evidence on record, the presence of PW3 by the time of settlement of bargain is highly doubtful. PW4 is 2nd attestor of the agreement to sell and according to the terms of the agreement to sell, the plaintiff agreed to pay the balance of sale consideration within 4 months and obtain registered sale deed. This fact was not spoken by any of the witnesses. Admittedly, PW4 is an employee of Canara Bank, Kakinada Branch and the alleged date of execution of the agreement to sell is a working day. The agreement to sell was allegedly executed at 4 or 4.30 p.m., but working hours of bank is upto 5 p.m. and even after completion of office hours, they used to stay in office attending urgent work. Even otherwise, unless PW4 was on leave on the date of execution of alleged agreement to sell, his presence at the residence of the 1st defendant at 4 or 4.30 p.m. is highly improbable and creates any amount of doubt about execution and attestation of the alleged agreement to sell. Hence, the evidence of PW4 regarding attestation of agreement to sell is unbelievable and improbable to the circumstances since it is not his case that he was on leave on the date of alleged agreement to sell. Therefore, the evidence of PW4 is highly doubtful and he is not a trustworthy witness. Hence, the evidence of PW4 is disbelieved. 16. The cumulative effect of oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and Ex.A4 at best may establish that an agreement to sell was executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff. None of the witnesses disclosed the specific terms of the agreement to sell in their evidence and in the pleadings also. There is no whisper about usual terms the agreement to sell contained. None of the witnesses disclosed the specific terms of the agreement to sell in their evidence and in the pleadings also. There is no whisper about usual terms the agreement to sell contained. Therefore, in the absence of any details regarding the terms of agreement to sell, execution of agreement itself became suspicious. 17. The case of the plaintiff is based on loss of agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983 allegedly executed by the 1st defendant in his favour. As seen from the record, the plaintiff did not obtain any permission from the trial Court to adduce secondary evidence strictly complying the requirements under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'the Act of 1872'), but he examined many witnesses to prove execution of agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983 on the ground that the plaintiff lost the agreement to sell at Mummidivaram while he was sleeping at the coconut shop of the 2nd defendant. Unless permission is accorded by the trial Court satisfying about the conditions required for grant of permission under Section 65 of the Act of 1872, secondary evidence adduced by the plaintiff to prove the execution of agreement to sell cannot be looked into since a fact is required to be proved by producing primary evidence under Sections 62 and 67 of the Act of 1872. According to Section 65, if the Court is satisfied about existence of conditions (a) to (g) of Section 65 of the Act of 1872, the Court may permit the party to adduce secondary evidence. According to Section 65, if the Court is satisfied about existence of conditions (a) to (g) of Section 65 of the Act of 1872, the Court may permit the party to adduce secondary evidence. For better appreciation of facts, Section 65 of the Act of 1872 is extracted hereunder: "Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases: (a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power--of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it; (b) When the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; (c) When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or negligence, produce it in reasonable time; (d) When the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable; (e) When the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74; (f) When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence; (g) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection. In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents. Clause (c) of Section 65 is the relevant provision applicable to the present facts of the case which deals with destruction or loss of a document. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents. Clause (c) of Section 65 is the relevant provision applicable to the present facts of the case which deals with destruction or loss of a document. If the plaintiff is able to prove that original has been destroyed or lost or for any other reason not due to own default or negligence he could not produce the document within a reasonable time, permission can be granted to adduce secondary evidence. 18. If an instrument is destroyed or lost, the party seeking to give secondary evidence of its contents must give some evidence that the original once existed and must then either prove its destruction positively or at least presumptively as by showing that it has been thrown aside as useless or he must establish its loss by proof that a search has been unsuccessfully made for it in the place or places where it was most likely to be found and of persons likely to have possession of the same. What degree of diligence is necessary in the search for a lost instrument cannot easily be defined as each case must depend much on its own peculiar circumstances but the party is generally expected to show that he has, in good faith, exhausted in a reasonable degree all the sources of information and means of discovery which the nature would naturally suggest and which are accessible to him as held by this Court in Ananta v. Bommadevara, AIR 1958 AP 418 . From the principles laid down by various High Courts including this Court, it is for the plaintiff to prove loss of the instrument or destruction of the document was not on account of his negligence or default and he made sincere and honest attempts to search from the place where it was lost and from the person who is expected to be in custody. In the instant case on hand, the plaintiff carried the agreement to sell in a bag and, while waiting for bus at the shop of the 2nd defendant, slept on a cot keeping the bag under his head and when bus arrived, he hurriedly left the bag on the cot and went to Kakinada. In the instant case on hand, the plaintiff carried the agreement to sell in a bag and, while waiting for bus at the shop of the 2nd defendant, slept on a cot keeping the bag under his head and when bus arrived, he hurriedly left the bag on the cot and went to Kakinada. Immediately, he came to know about loss of agreement to sell on reaching Kakinada but no attempt was made to go for Mummidivaram to trace the agreement of sale. On the other hand, according to the admission of PW1, after 3 or 4 days, he gave complaint to police about loss of agreement to sell which is improbable to the natural circumstances. Even otherwise, office copy of the complaint was not marked nor even summoned the complaint from the police concerned to whom it was given. It is not his case that he came back to Mummidivaram and searched for the agreement contained in the bag. So, it is abundantly clear from the material on record that PW1 did not search for the agreement to sell where he allegedly lost. Thus, the plaintiff, though proved about execution of agreement to sell, failed to prove the honest and sincere attempts made by him to trace the agreement to sell. In such a case, the Court shall not permit the plaintiff to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the document since Section 65(c) contemplates that though the document could not be produced within a reasonable time, but not on account of own default or negligence of the person who intends to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the document. 19. The plaintiff also got examined the stamp vendor and a staff member of the Registrar Office to prove purchase of stamp papers worth of Rs. 3/- and Rs. 2/- for execution of agreement to sell but their evidence is not much relevant for deciding the real controversy. The plaintiff made a vain attempt to prove loss of the agreement to sell and got examined PW5 D. Suryanarayana who is a resident of Mummidivaram, carrying on coconut business. 3/- and Rs. 2/- for execution of agreement to sell but their evidence is not much relevant for deciding the real controversy. The plaintiff made a vain attempt to prove loss of the agreement to sell and got examined PW5 D. Suryanarayana who is a resident of Mummidivaram, carrying on coconut business. According to his evidence, he is selling coconut to the 2nd defendant who is carrying on coconut business and about 4 years back when the plaintiff went to the shop of the 2nd defendant and while waiting for bus, he noticed that the plaintiff hurriedly went away to catch the bus from the shop of the 2nd defendant leaving his belongings in a bag and he took them up and gave them to the 2nd defendant. Even this piece of evidence of PW5 is silent about what the bag contained and the examination in chief of PW1 did not disclose that the agreement to sell was in the bag at the time when he took the bag and handed over the same to the 2nd defendant. In the cross-examination, PW5 testified that he made an attempt to handover the bag but the bus departed and he noticed some papers and cloths in the bag but he did not open the bag and observe the contents and handed over the bag to the 2nd defendant about 4 years back. About one year thereafter, the plaintiff enquired about his bag and then, he informed that he handed over the bag to the 2nd defendant. This fact was not spoken by PW1 regarding enquiring about loss of bag through PW5 and the information given by him about handing over the bag to the 2nd defendant and it appears that PW5 is brought somehow to prove the possession of the agreement to sell with the 2nd defendant. According to the testimony of PW5, he had acquaintance with PW1 even prior to the incident of leaving the bag at the shop of the 2nd defendant. In such a case, none prevented PW5 to inform about handing over of the bag to the 2nd defendant without waiting for one year till the plaintiff enquired him and apart from that, when PW5 was sitting by the side of cot, where the bag was allegedly left, the plaintiff himself ought to have enquired about the bag. In such a case, none prevented PW5 to inform about handing over of the bag to the 2nd defendant without waiting for one year till the plaintiff enquired him and apart from that, when PW5 was sitting by the side of cot, where the bag was allegedly left, the plaintiff himself ought to have enquired about the bag. Even after receipt of alleged information, PW1 did not issue any notice to the 2nd defendant calling him to produce the document during pendency of the suit enabling him to adduce secondary evidence. Therefore, the evidence on record adduced by the plaintiff is insufficient to conclude that the plaintiff lost the agreement to sell but for different reasons, the defendant suppressed the agreement, if any in existence, and invented a story of loss or missing of agreement to sell. The trial Court recorded its finding that the plaintiff failed to prove loss of agreement to sell and approached the Court with tainted hands and thereby, he is disentitled to claim the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell. 20. The Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, though raised several contentions in the grounds of appeal and during argument, did not explain how the finding of the trial Court is erroneous on issue No. 1. Even on reappraisal of entire material available on record, the plaintiff miserably failed to establish that a search has been unsuccessfully made for tracing the agreement to sell in the place or places where it was most likely to be found and persons likely to have possession of the same and in such a case, the plaintiff is not entitled to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the agreement to sell. 21. In Haripriya Debi v. Rukmini Debi, ILR 19 Cal. 438, Privy Counsel upheld the trial Court's refusal to accept secondary evidence and observed as follows: "The question whether or not sufficient proof of search for, or loss of, an original has been given is one for a Court of first instance and its conclusion should not be overruled except in a clear case of miscarriage of justice." 22. In Gaya Prasad v. Jaswanth Roy and Chuha Mal v. Rahim Baksh, AIR 1924 Lah. 302, a similar view is taken that the question of sufficient reason for non-production is a question of fact and depends upon the discretion of the Court. In Gaya Prasad v. Jaswanth Roy and Chuha Mal v. Rahim Baksh, AIR 1924 Lah. 302, a similar view is taken that the question of sufficient reason for non-production is a question of fact and depends upon the discretion of the Court. In the later case, the trial Court had admitted the document but the appellate Court reversed it, holding that the trial Court's discretion ought not to be interfered with. If these principles laid down by various Courts including Privy Council referred above are applied to the facts of the present case, acceptance of loss of document is purely discretion of the trial Court and unless there is a clear miscarriage of justice, the appellate Court cannot interfere with such finding. 23. This Court had an occasion to deal with a similar issue in T.V. Kameswari v. V.R. Sudhakara Rao, 2004 (1) ALJ 87 : 2003 (6) ALD (NOC) 26-1 and others, held that basing on a small slip and evidence of other witnesses regarding payment of amount, a decree for specific performance cannot be granted and it was further observed that the trial Court had linked one with another and drawn inference that there should have been oral agreement of sale in relation to plot. This principle is not strictly applicable to the present facts of the case but still basing on small slip of paper, the Court cannot come to the conclusion that there exists an agreement of sale. 24. In Niloba and another v. Rukmini Bai and another, the Bombay High Court held that ordinarily, a transaction can be proved by primary evidence but secondary evidence is admissible in exceptional circumstances and there should be necessary foundation prepared for admission of secondary evidence. Unless some of the exceptional circumstances indicated in Section 65of Indian Evidence Act are satisfied, ordinarily the document will have to be proved by its primary evidence. Section 65(c)permits a party to lead secondary evidence of a document when the original has been destroyed or lost. The facts of the case are that in the plaint itself, it was contended that the original agreement of sale was lost and therefore, a certified copy of the agreement of sale being a registered document was being tendered along with plaint and apart from pleading in the plaint, the 1st defendant admitted execution of agreement of sale. The facts of the case are that in the plaint itself, it was contended that the original agreement of sale was lost and therefore, a certified copy of the agreement of sale being a registered document was being tendered along with plaint and apart from pleading in the plaint, the 1st defendant admitted execution of agreement of sale. Therefore, the Bombay High Court accepted the loss of agreement of sale in view of the judicial admission in the written statement filed by the defendant. From the above judgment, it is clear that the plaintiff must lay foundation in the pleadings itself and seek permission to adduce secondary evidence. 25. In another judgment in Balaram Das Agarwala v. Kesav Deo Khemka, it was held that loss of Hundi can never be proved absolutely. Could that be general, there would have been seldom a loss. Unless there is a plea put forth in the pleadings satisfying the requirements under Section 65(c) of Indian Evidence Act, the plea of loss cannot be accepted. At the same time, in the same judgment, the Calcutta High Court held that when no manner of objection was raised to the receipt of such evidence, the Court may adjudicate upon it. It appears in this case that the defendant did not object the plaintiff to adduce oral evidence to prove the contents of agreement. In such a case, the Court can adjudicate upon it. Therefore, failure to seek permission to adduce secondary evidence as required under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act is not a ground to reject the case of the plaintiff. However, when the trial Court by exercising its discretion disbelieved loss or destruction of the agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983, this Court being the Court of 1st appeal cannot interfere with the conclusion arrived by the trial Court unless it is shown that there is a grave miscarriage of justice. In the instant case on hand, the plaintiff did not point out any grave miscarriage of justice warranting interference of this Court in this appeal in the finding recorded by the trial Court by exercising its discretion. Hence, I am unable to interfere with the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 1. Accordingly, the points are held against the appellant-plaintiff and in favour of the respondent-defendants. In Re. Point Nos. 3 and 4: 26. Hence, I am unable to interfere with the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 1. Accordingly, the points are held against the appellant-plaintiff and in favour of the respondent-defendants. In Re. Point Nos. 3 and 4: 26. To seek the relief of specific performance, the plaintiff must not only plead but also prove that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of obligation under the agreement to sell. In the instant case on hand, the plaintiff allegedly obtained agreement to sell dated 24.1.1983 which he lost but loss of agreement was not accepted by the trial Court and this Court also while deciding Point Nos. 1 and 2. However, accepting the contention of the plaintiff for a moment, the Court has to look into the attending circumstances and the conduct of the plaintiff to find out whether his plea of readiness and willingness is genuine and bona fide. There is no specific plea as to the time within which the plaintiff has to pay balance sale consideration and obtain registered sale deed from the 1st defendant and the evidence of PW1 is totally silent with regard to terms and conditions of the alleged agreement to sale. However, PW3 strangely admitted that the plaintiff has to pay balance sale consideration within four months and obtain registered sale deed but the plaintiff paid only Rs. 5,000/- allegedly under Ex.A4 and thereafter, the plaintiff did not pay any amount towards balance of sale consideration. The plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 19.4.1983 i.e., just before expiry of four months time expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of obligation under agreement to sell. 27. In view of my finding on Point Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff miserably failed to establish loss of agreement to sell and suppressed the agreement allegedly executed by the 1st defendant and thereby, he is disentitled to claim the relief of specific performance as it is purely a discretionary relief under Section 20 of Specific Relief Act. When the plaintiff approached the Court seeking the relief of specific performance with unclean hands, he is disentitled to claim the relief of specific performance and he cannot rely on the weakness or absence of defence. When the plaintiff approached the Court seeking the relief of specific performance with unclean hands, he is disentitled to claim the relief of specific performance and he cannot rely on the weakness or absence of defence. In the recent judgment in Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals v. Ramaniyam Real Estates Private Limited and another, 2012 (1) ALD 70 (SC) : (2011) 9 SCC 147 , it was held that: "When a party approached seeking the relief of specific performance, it is axiomatic that when a discretionary remedy is prayed for by a party, such party must come to Court on proper disclosure of facts. The plaint which it filed before the Court in such cases must state all the facts. The plaint which it filed before the Court in such cases must state all the facts with sufficient candor and clarity. In the instant case, the plaintiff purchaser made an averment in the plaint that the defendant vendor be directed to return the advance amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest @ 24% from the date of payment of the said amount. However, the fact was that prior to the filing of the suit, the defendant vendor had sent the amount by registered post to the plaintiff which it refused to accept. This is suppression of material fact and disentitles the plaintiff purchaser from getting any discretionary relief of specific performance." 28. In another judgment in Lourdu Mori David and others v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy and others, AIR 1996 SC 2814 (1), it was observed that: "It is settled law that the party who seeks to avail of the equitable jurisdiction of a Court and specific performance being equitable relief, must come to the Court with clean hands. In other words, the party who makes false allegations does not come with clean hands and is not entitled to the equitable relief. This Division Bench has pointed out in the judgment three grounds which disentitle the plaintiff to the equitable relief as he came with a positive case of incorrect and false facts." 29. Thus, from the consistent law laid down by apex Court, when a person approached the Court with incorrect and false facts is disentitled to claim the relief of specific performance which is discretionary under Section 20 of Specific Relief Act. Thus, from the consistent law laid down by apex Court, when a person approached the Court with incorrect and false facts is disentitled to claim the relief of specific performance which is discretionary under Section 20 of Specific Relief Act. The Court cannot lien towards granting the relief of specific performance when the plaintiff approached the Court with tainted hands suppressing the true facts. In view of the principles laid down in the above decisions, the trial Court, while disbelieving loss of agreement to sell, rightly declined to grant the discretionary relief of specific performance and even after reappraisal of entire evidence with reference to the principles of law laid down by apex Court and persuaded by the decisions of other High Courts, I find no grounds warranting interference with the judgment of the trial Court except to concur with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Hence I find that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the relief of specific performance. Accordingly, the points are answered in favour of the respondents-defendants and against the appellant-plaintiff. 30. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find no merits in the appeal and it deserved to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned decree and judgment in OS No. 57 of 1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram dated 28.3.1990. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this appeal, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.