JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.:- As per the averments made in the plaint, appellant was owner in possession of the suit land. On 6.6.2005, he executed the sale deed qua the suit land in favour of the defendant. However, it is his case that the above sale deed was merely a paper transaction as defendant had failed to pay sale consideration. According to him, on the day of execution of sale deed, defendant has made oral promise that he would pay sale consideration after about seven months from the date of execution of the sale deed and has further agreed to pay interest and other expenses and therefore, on the same day one pronote and receipt qua a sum of Rs. 3,80,000/-was executed between the parties in the presence of same witnesses. Interest of about seven months was also adjusted in the pronote and receipt. It is the case of the appellant that though it was recited in the sale deed that possession was delivered but plaintiff was not legally bound to deliver the possession of the suit land without non-payment of sale consideration. It is his further case that defendant failed to pay sale consideration although pronote and receipt were executed by the defendant in his favour. As per the averments, plaintiff also filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt. 2. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, appellant filed the instant suit i.e. suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit property and the sale deed dated 6.6.2005 executed by him in favour of the respondent was only for the purpose of security for the amount of loan qua which a separate suit for recovery was to be filed and the sale deed was null and void being without consideration. He further sought relief of permanent injunction from alienating the suit land and dispossessing him 3. Upon notice, defendant-respondent contested the suit by filing written statement and raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land except 12 kanals. Rather defendant Babu Singh was owner in possession of 12 kanals of land which he had purchased as share of plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 6.6.2005. Upon notice, defendant-respondent contested the suit by filing written statement and raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land except 12 kanals. Rather defendant Babu Singh was owner in possession of 12 kanals of land which he had purchased as share of plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 6.6.2005. Plaintiff with a mala fide intention, mentioned in the head note of the plaint as disputed land and there is no dispute between the parties qua the ownership and possession of the suit land except 12 kanals of disputed land. On 6.6.2005, plaintiff had taken cash sale consideration of Rs. 3,30,000/- in the presence of witnesses and had handed over possession of land bearing khasra No.280(8-0), 900 min(4-0). Thereafter, plaintiff had executed the sale deed and got it registered from Sub Registrar, Baghapurana, vide wasika No.1321 dated 6.6.2005. Respondent further submitted that plaintiff had voluntarily executed and got registered sale deed and thus, the same was legal, valid and binding upon his rights. 4. It was further averred that on 6.6.2005, defendant approached plaintiff and requested him to advance Rs. 4,00,000/- on interest and the plaintiff had agreed to do so and thereafter, defendant executed pronote and receipt dated 6.6.2005 after receiving a sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- and thus, both transactions on the basis of sale deed and pronote were different and there was no connection between them. On 25.2.2006, defendant had repaid Rs. 3,00,000/- to plaintiff qua the loan amount in the presence of the witnesses. Defendant did not issue any receipt and only a sum of Rs. 80,000/- remains due to be paid along with interest and he was ready to pay the same. It was also mentioned in the written statement that plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,16,800/- i.e. Rs. 3,80,000/- as principal amount and Rs. 1,36,000/- as interest and the suit is pending. 5. It was specifically denied that defendant had not paid sale consideration. Rather the sale deed was voluntarily executed by the plaintiff. Defendant was in continuous possession of suit land in dispute. It was further submitted that plaintiff was not entitled to file the present suit as he had already filed a civil suit for recovery. Other averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 6. Rather the sale deed was voluntarily executed by the plaintiff. Defendant was in continuous possession of suit land in dispute. It was further submitted that plaintiff was not entitled to file the present suit as he had already filed a civil suit for recovery. Other averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to get the relief for declaration as prayed for? OPP 2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to get the consequential relief for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 3) Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 4) Whether plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court? If so, its effect?OPD 5) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? If so its effect? OPD. 6) Relief. 7. After considering the evidence on record and hearing counsel for the parties, trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.2013 holding that the plaintiff has acknowledged the execution of the sale deed dated 6.6.2005 and has failed to prove that the sale deed is illegal, null and void and not binding qua the rights of the plaintiff due to non-payment of sale consideration. Moreover, suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff has already been decreed and thus, he was not entitled for declaration as prayed as he was estopped from filing the present suit when he had already filed suit for recovery qua the sale consideration. 8. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the lower Court, plaintiff filed the appeal before the First Appellate Court which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 02.12.2013. While dismissing the suit, lower Appellate Court observed as under:- “14 On pulverizing of pleadings and evidence, it emerges on surface that through sale deed dated 6.6.2005 Ex.P1,plaintiff Jabra Singh had sold 12 kanals of his land to defendant-respondent Babu Singh, out of suit land for sale consideration of Rs. 3,30,000/- and as per this document, defendantrespondent was given possession of property comprised in khasra No. 280(8-0) and 900 min(4-0) along with other rights appurtenant to it. Entire sale consideration is stated to have already been paid. It is also an admitted fact that pronote for Rs. 3,80,000/- was executed by defendantrespondent in favour of plaintiff-appellant on the same day. 3,30,000/- and as per this document, defendantrespondent was given possession of property comprised in khasra No. 280(8-0) and 900 min(4-0) along with other rights appurtenant to it. Entire sale consideration is stated to have already been paid. It is also an admitted fact that pronote for Rs. 3,80,000/- was executed by defendantrespondent in favour of plaintiff-appellant on the same day. Witnesses to both these documents are common. Plaintiff-appellant earlier to filing the suit in hand had flied another suit which has been decided by the court of Shri Rakesh Gupta, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga vide judgment dated 19.7.2011 on basis of pronote and receipt dated 6.6.2005 and that suit was decreed for recovery of Rs. 5,16,800/-. Perusal of judgment shows that appellant-plaintiff Jabra Singh: had put a claim before that court that defendant-respondent Babu Singh had purchased 240/5601 share in land situated at village Sekha Khurd from plaintiff on 6.6.2005 through registered sale deed, but no consideration was passed in that transaction, in lieu thereof, defendant had executed pronote and receipt dated 6.6,2005 in his favour for Rs. 3,80,000/- and promised to pay the same after seven months. When defendant-respondent Babu Singh did not pay that amount, suit was filed. In that suit, defendant-respondent has put up the same story as is the stand taken by him in this suit. After contest suit was decree for Rs. 5,61,800/- with future interest. 15. Suit in hand was filed by plaintiff-appellant on 28.5.2008 whereas aforesaid suit was also filed by him on same day, which shows that he has availed two separate remedies against one cause of action, if his version is taken as gospel truth, if he had executed sale deed dated 6.6.2005 without any consideration, he cold either recover the amount mentioned in the pronote and receipt dated 6.6.2005 as per terms and conditions mentioned therein, because as per his own version, he had deferred receipt of sale consideration or he could get sale deed set aside. Now be cannot challenge the sale deed on the ground that no consideration was paid to him, because he cannot eat and have a cake at the same time. For this short reason, this appeal can be thrown away, but still I proceed to examine the evidence brought on record by plaintiffappellant. 16. Now be cannot challenge the sale deed on the ground that no consideration was paid to him, because he cannot eat and have a cake at the same time. For this short reason, this appeal can be thrown away, but still I proceed to examine the evidence brought on record by plaintiffappellant. 16. It is pertinent to mention here that Jabra Singh plaintiff- appellant himself has not stepped into the witness box to support the averments set forth by him in his plaint. He has examined Jagdev Singh son of Balwinder Singh as PW1. He was witness to the sale deed. During the course of crossexamination, he has admitted that Jabra Singh had got executed and registered sale deed for 12 kanals of land on 6.6.2005 in favour of Babu Singh defendant-respondent out of his own free will, without any kind of coercion, threat, inducement or any fraud. He has next admitted that after scribing Ex.P1, the scribe had read out its contents to this witness, other witness Ujaggar Singh, vendor Labra Singh and vendee Babu Singh and all parties to it had signed Ex.P1 after admitting contents thereof without any objection and thereafter, sale deed was got registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Baghapurana where document was registered alter completion of necessary formalities. He was not able to admit or deny the fact as to whether any reference relating to pronote and receipt was made in sale deed or not, which shows that he has been concealing the truth because in the next breath he has admitted that pronote and receipt were executed later on which is the case of defendantrespondent. This person admits that property was sold by Jabra Singh to Babu Singh for Rs. 3,30,000/- and pronote was executed by Babu Singh in favour of Jabra Singh for Rs. 3,80,000/- which makes both these transactions to be different. Actually this witness has admitted entire version of plaintiffappellant. 17. Learned counsel for appellant-plaintiff had tried to Convince ibis court for holding that sale deed in question is a sham transaction by contending that witnesses examined by plaintiff-appellant have stated in specific and categoric terms that possession of the property mentioned in sale deed Ex.P1 was never delivered to Babu Singh. But this contention cannot be accepted for obvious reason that oral evidence cannot he relied upon against documentary evidence. But this contention cannot be accepted for obvious reason that oral evidence cannot he relied upon against documentary evidence. In Ex.P1, it is mentioned that property comprised in khasra No. 280(8-0) and 900 min (4-0) has been sold and possession had been delivered to Babu Singh. 18. Jai Singh PW2 has appeared as attorney of Jabra Singh plaintiff and he admits filing of the suit regarding recovery, its decree and dismissal of appeal flied by Babu Singh against that decree. This witness has also admitted that Jabra Singh had executed a sale deed without any fraud, threat, coercion or inducement. He has admitted in specific and categoric terms that Jabra Singh had not raised any objection regarding scribing of sale deed and sale deed dated 6.6.2005 was got scribed by Jabra Singh plaintiff himself He has further admitted that deed writer had written the same words in the sale deed dated 6.6.2005 which were narrated by Jabra Singh plaintiff himself. In the light of such situation, now plaintiff-appellant Jabra Singh is estopped to raise any voice against the document, which was got scribed and registered at his own behest. It appears that Jabra Singh has become an old aged person and he is playing in the hands of Jai Singh, who might be acting out of greed, because of soaring increase in price of land. 19. It is pertinent to mention here that learned counsel for appellant had raised one more contention that appellant will not he able to get executed the money decree obtained by him but that contention has been belied by own conduct of appellant, who has refused to accept demand draft of Rs. 7,25,000/-, which has been ordered to be deposited in executing court. So, it does not lie in mouth of appellant to contend that he will not he able to realize the fruits of money decree or on that account this Court should grant relief regarding nullity of the sale deed. 9. Still not satisfied, plaintiff has filed the instant appeal submitting that following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:- i. Whether the sale deed is valid in absence of payment of sale consideration amount? ii. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are based on misplaced facts and mis-reading of evidence are bad in law and are liable to be set aside? iii. ii. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are based on misplaced facts and mis-reading of evidence are bad in law and are liable to be set aside? iii. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are illegal and without justification? iv. Whether impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are unsustainable in law and are liable to be set aside? v. Whether the findings on the issues by Ld. Lower Courts are against the facts on record and evidence and thus liable to be set aside? 10. In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that from the facts proved on record, it stands conclusively proved that no sale consideration was paid to the appellant and thus, the sale deed dated 6.6.2005 was not binding upon him being without sale consideration and in view thereof, he was entitled to the declaration as prayed. 11. It is the case of the appellant that findings have been recorded on misreading and misinterpretation of pleadings and evidence both. So the findings are not only perverse, but being passed by ignoring material evidence on record. According to the appellant, it is the categoric case of the appellant that the pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2 were executed by the defendant in lieu of sale consideration, therefore, the plea of defendant that sale consideration was paid in his house stands falsified and in view of the aforesaid, the substantial questions of law, as noticed, do arise in this appeal. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below. 13. The arguments raised on behalf of the appellant are misconceived and liable to be rejected. 14. At the outset, it may be noticed that undisputedly appellant filed two suits on 28.5.2008, one suit in hand and other suit for recovery on the basis of pronote. Thus, he availed two separate remedies against one cause of action. Even if the averments made on behalf of the appellant are taken to be a gospel truth that he had executed sale deed on 6.6.2005 without any sale consideration, he could either claim the amount in pronote and receipt as per terms and conditions mentioned therein or he could get sale deed set aside. Even if the averments made on behalf of the appellant are taken to be a gospel truth that he had executed sale deed on 6.6.2005 without any sale consideration, he could either claim the amount in pronote and receipt as per terms and conditions mentioned therein or he could get sale deed set aside. After filing of the recovery suit, he could not have challenged the sale deed on the ground that no sale consideration was paid to him and in view of the fact that a decree for recovery of pronote amount on the basis of pronote and receipt already passed in his favour, the instant appeal is liable to be rejected outrightly. In fact, lower Appellate Court has noticed that appellant has refused a demand draft of Rs. 7,25,000/-which was ordered to be deposited in Executing Court meaning thereby that he himself does not want to execute money decree intentionally. 15. At this stage, it may further be noticed that execution of sale deed Ex.P1 is not in dispute. It is recited in the sale deed that entire sale consideration has been received at house. It is well settled that oral evidence cannot be relied upon to disprove the written contents of such a document, execution of which is not in dispute. 16. In view thereof, averments made on behalf of the appellant being without any merit, no substantial questions of law, as raised, arise in this appeal. 17. Dismissed.