JUDGMENT : V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, decreeing a suit for specific performance filed by the agreement purchaser and dismissing a suit for permanent injunction filed by the agreement vendor. 2. We have heard Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mrs. A. Chayadevi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The sole respondent in C.C.C.A.No.43 of 2015 and the 1st respondent in C.C.C.A.No.67 of 2015 filed a suit in O.S.No.125 of 2010 praying for (i) a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 11.06.2009 (ii) the cancellation of a deed of cancellation of the General Power of Attorney dated 03.03.2010 and (iii) a decree of permanent injunction restraining the appellants from alienating the suit schedule property. The said suit was filed on 09.03.2010. 4. On 11.03.2010 the sole appellant in C.C.C.A.No.67 of 2015 and the 1st appellant in C.C.C.A.No.43 of 2015 filed an independent suit in O.S.No.128 of 2010 for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the agreement holder from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Both the suits were taken up together for disposal and evidence was let in common. Thereafter, by a common judgment dated 19.12.2014, the trial Court dismissed the suit for permanent injunction filed by the agreement vendor and decreed the suit for specific performance filed by the agreement purchaser. Therefore, the agreement vendor has come up with one appeal against the dismissal of his suit for permanent injunction and has come up with another appeal as against the decree of specific performance. 5. For the purpose of convenience we shall refer to the main contestants as agreement vendor and agreement purchaser and the other parties to these appeals by reference to their relationship with either of the parties. 6. The averments with which the agreement purchaser filed O.S.No.125 of 2010 for specific performance of an agreement of sale, in brief, were as follows: a) That the agreement vendor, claiming to be the owner and possessor of the property bearing D.No.8-2-293/82/A/1363 in Plot No.1363 consisting of ground and first floor, admeasuring 1245 sq. yards or 1040.82 sq. mts., with a built up area of ground floor 2300 sq. yards or 1040.82 sq. mts., with a built up area of ground floor 2300 sq. feet and first floor 2300 sq. feet, situated at Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, offered to sell the same to the agreement purchaser for a total consideration of Rs.3 crores; b) that accordingly an agreement of sale cum GPA with possession was executed on 11.06.2009 and the same was attested by the daughter and son-in-law of the agreement vendor; c) that the son-in-law of the agreement vendor was arrayed as 2nd defendant in the suit; d) that the agreement purchaser paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.3 crores as detailed in Clause-2 of the agreement; e) out of the entire sale consideration, a sum of Rs.1,32,25,000/- was paid by way of cheques and Demand Drafts on various dates to the nominee of the agreement vendor before the execution of the agreement; f) that the balance of Rs.1,67,75,000/- was paid by way of cash by the agreement purchaser on the date of execution of the agreement; g) that the agreement vendor admitted, confirmed and acknowledged the receipt of entire sale consideration in the agreement itself; h) that the agreement vendor also delivered vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the agreement purchaser on the date of the agreement; i) that it was agreed between the parties that the suit property was free from all encumbrances and that no person had any claim; j) that the agreement vendor executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney and it was coupled with interest; k) that after the execution of the agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney, the agreement purchaser came to know that the agreement vendor had earlier agreed to sell the suit property to one Mr. P.R.K. Rao and also received a sum of Rs.90 lakhs towards part of the sale consideration; l) that the agreement purchaser had to settle the matter with P.R.K. Rao in order to have the property free of all encumbrances, by repaying the advance amount paid by him; m) in or about the same time, the agreement purchaser also came to know that the son-in-law of the agreement vendor (2nd defendant) had obtained a loan from the City Financial Consumer Finance India Limited by mortgaging the suit property and that without discharging the loan they transferred the suit property to the agreement vendor (1st defendant); n) that the agreement purchaser agreed to pay the outstanding amount in instalments to the said Finance Company, at the request of the son-in-law of the agreement vendor, in order to have the property freed from mortgage; o) that the agreement purchaser also paid some instalments; p) that the agreement purchaser is a bona fide purchaser of the property for valuable consideration; q) that the agreement vendor and his son-in-law suppressed the agreement of sale with Sri P.R.K. Rao (wrongly mentioned as P.R.K. Reddy in para-III.C of the plaint) and suppressed the fact about the loan due on the mortgage and induced the agreement purchaser to purchase the property; r) that the alleged loan transaction and alleged mortgage were never disclosed to the agreement purchaser; s) that the agreement vendor specifically represented that the suit property was not subjected to any mortgage; t) that on 04.03.2010 at about 10 p.m., the agreement vendor and his son-in-law came to the suit property along with 50 to 70 anti-social elements wielding lathies and other weapons and trespassed into the suit property by beating the watchman and threatening to kill them; u) that the agreement vendor and his son-in-law with their henchmen forcibly took possession in an illegal manner; v) that the agreement purchaser reported the matter to Jubilee Hills Police Station, who registered a case in Crime No.80 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 448, 420 and 506 I.P.C., but the police did not flush out the trespassers, as they are very influential people; w) that the agreement purchaser therefore filed a petition before the A.P. State Human Rights Commission on 08.03.2010 in H.R.C.No.2141 of 2010; x) that the Human Rights Commission passed an order dated 08.03.2010 directing the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banjara Hills to file a report by 10.03.2010; y) that the agreement purchaser also came to know that the agreement vendor executed a deed of cancellation of the General Power of Attorney on 03.03.2010, z) that as per the deed of cancellation dated 03.03.2010, the agreement of sale remained intact but the power of attorney alone got revoked; aa) That the agreement vendor has no right either to cancel the agreement of sale or to revoke the General Power of Attorney; ab) that the agreement purchaser is always ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations; ac) that the conduct of the agreement vendor in cancelling the G.P.A and forcibly taking possession shows that he was not willing to perform his obligations; ad) that the deed of cancellation is illegal, fraudulent and not binding on the agreement purchaser and that in view of these developments, the agreement purchaser was obliged to file the suit for specific performance as well as for cancellation of the deed of cancellation of GPA and for permanent injunction. 7. 7. The agreement vendor and his son-in-law, who were arrayed as defendants 1 and 2 in the suit for specific performance in O.S.No.125 of 2010, filed a common written statement contending inter alia that the agreement vendor never offered or agreed to sell nor negotiated with the agreement purchaser to sell the suit schedule property; that the suit schedule property is worth more than Rs.10 crores and even as per the Government prevailing market rate the value of the property was Rs.7,72,30,000/- on the date of the agreement, viz., 11.06.2009 and hence there was no occasion to sell the property for Rs.3 crores; that the document dated 11.06.2009 was executed for the purpose of securing the investment made by the agreement purchaser in a Telugu feature film titled “Keka” directed by the son-in-law of the agreement vendor, viz., the 2nd defendant; that the agreement purchaser is a film financier, producer and distributor of Telugu feature films; that the agreement purchaser and the son-in-law of the agreement vendor had business dealings; that the agreement purchaser used to finance the production and distribution of feature films made by the son-in-law of the agreement vendor and the accounts used to get settled between the parties after the release of the film; that the agreement purchaser requested the son-in-law of the agreement vendor to give him distribution rights for Nizam area for the feature film “Keka” and invested money for the said purpose; that for securing the money so invested, the son-in-law requested the agreement vendor to provide his property; that without verifying the facts and without taking any consideration, the agreement vendor executed an agreement cum GPA as a nominal document; that the said document is not a sale transaction; that even admittedly the agreement purchaser paid the amounts mentioned in the sale agreement, to the 2nd defendant (son-in-law of the agreement vendor), who is not the owner of the suit schedule property; that the document was witnessed by the agreement vendor’s daughter and son-in-law, since it was a business transaction; that the agreement purchaser did not pay any consideration to the agreement vendor for the purpose of sale transaction; that the amounts paid by the agreement purchaser were towards the investment made for the feature film directed by the son-in-law of the agreement vendor; that the amounts paid by the agreement purchaser through cheques and Demand Drafts were prior in point of time to the date of the agreement; that most of the amounts paid by the agreement purchaser are to the account of Chitram Movies and not to any individual, showing thereby that they were part of a business transaction; that the agreement vendor never handed over the possession of the property; that the document dated 11.06.2009 was only a nominal document and there was no legal sanctity for the same; that the son-in-law of the agreement vendor obtained loan from a Finance Company and the property documents were actually kept as collateral security with the Finance Company; that the creation of the charge over the property in favour of the Finance Company was within the knowledge of the agreement purchaser; that the plea of the agreement purchaser that the property was represented to be free of all encumbrances, is false as the agreement purchaser himself had given cheques for Rs.7,20,000/- directly to the Finance Company towards the installments payable by the son-in-law of the agreement vendor; that the agreement vendor had actually let out the suit schedule property to one P.R.K. Rao; that the said P.R.K.Rao agreed to purchase the property for Rs.9 crores, but subsequently failed to honour his own contract and also stopped paying rent; that the agreement purchaser never settled any dispute between P.R.K. Rao and the agreement vendor; that the said P.R.K Rao vacated the suit schedule property and handed over the possession to the agreement vendor; that the agreement vendor never handed over the possession of the property to the agreement purchaser; that the agreement vendor and his son-in-law are respectable and well known persons and as such the question of their visiting the suit property with anti social elements on 04.03.2010 does not arise; that the agreement purchaser filed a false complaint against the agreement vendor and got it registered with influence; that the agreement vendor is not aware of the complaints lodged by the agreement purchaser with the Human Rights Commission; that the agreement vendor rightly cancelled the GPA on 03.03.2010, as the agreement purchaser came to the property and tried to dispossess the agreement vendor; that once the document dated 11.06.2009 is a nominal one, not supported by any consideration, the same will not survive after its cancellation; that the agreement vendor, who is the actual owner of the property had not received any consideration from the agreement purchaser and as such the document dated 11.06.2009 was not coupled with any interest; that the suit schedule property is the subject matter of a mortgage with City Financial Consumer Finance India Limited, Hyderabad; that the value of the suit property is more than Rs.10 crores and as such, selling the property for Rs.3 crores does not arise; and that therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 8. After the defendants filed the written statement in the suit for specific performance, the plaintiff (agreement purchaser) got his plaint amended so as to include the relief of recovery of possession. As a consequence, the agreement vendor and his son-in-law, who were the defendants, filed an additional written statement denying the averment that the agreement purchaser was originally put in possession of the suit property. They also pleaded in the additional written statement that the criminal complaint lodged by the agreement purchaser was closed. 9. On the above pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues for consideration. (i) Whether the Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney with possession dated 11.06.2009 is true, valid and binding on the defendant No.1? (ii) Whether the transaction referred under Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 11.06.2009 was nominal and whether the said document was obtained as security for the investment made by the plaintiff for the picture (movie) “KEKA’ under the Directorship of second defendant? (iii) Whether the plaintiff lost possession on 04.03.2010 on account of trespass and high-handed dispossession? (iv) Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of obligation pursuant to Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 11.06.2009 and whether the said transaction is concluded contract and whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for restraining intervention of defendants in any manner? (vi) Whether the deed of cancellation dated 03.03.2010 is bad, void and illegal and whether the same is not binding on the plaintiff? (vii) Whether the Court fee paid is proper? (viii) To what relief? 10. In his own independent suit O.S.No.128 of 2010 filed for a permanent injunction, the agreement vendor made averments almost on identical lines, as in his written statement in the suit for specific performance. Therefore, we do not wish to repeat all the averments contained in the plaint in O.S.No.128 of 2010, except those that are not found in the written statement filed in the other suit. Therefore, we do not wish to repeat all the averments contained in the plaint in O.S.No.128 of 2010, except those that are not found in the written statement filed in the other suit. The additional pleadings contained in O.S.No.128 of 2010 are that the suit schedule property was acquired by the agreement vendor under a registered gift settlement deed dated 19.06.2006 executed by his daughter; that the daughter herself became the owner of the property by virtue of a sale deed dated 24.09.2002; that the son-in-law of the agreement vendor by name Dharma Teja is a renowned Film Director; that there were monetary transactions between the son-in-law of the agreement vendor and the agreement purchaser; that the suit property was under mortgage with City Financial Consumer Finance India Limited and the original documents of title were deposited with the Bank by way of equitable mortgage; that as a security for the monetary dealings between the agreement purchaser and the son-in-law of the agreement vendor, an agreement of sale cum GPA was executed on 11.06.2009; that when the agreement vendor sensed that the agreement purchaser would play foul by using the said agreement of sale, he cancelled the GPA on 03.03.2010; that thereafter, the agreement purchaser lodged a police complaint; that on finding that they are trying to knock away the suit property, the agreement vendor was forced to file a suit for permanent injunction. 11. The agreement purchaser filed a written statement in the suit for injunction, viz., O.S.No.128 of 2010, just repeating the same allegations as contained in his own suit for specific performance. 12. On the basis of the pleadings in O.S.No.128 of 2010, the Court below framed two issues in O.S.No.128 of 2010. Those issues were – 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for? 2. To what relief? 13. The agreement purchaser (plaintiff in the suit for specific performance) examined himself as PW.1. The agreement vendor examined himself as DW.1. No other witnesses were examined on both sides. 14. On behalf of the agreement purchaser, 43 documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.43. On behalf of the agreement vendor, 4 documents were marked as Exs.B.1 to B.4. 15. 13. The agreement purchaser (plaintiff in the suit for specific performance) examined himself as PW.1. The agreement vendor examined himself as DW.1. No other witnesses were examined on both sides. 14. On behalf of the agreement purchaser, 43 documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.43. On behalf of the agreement vendor, 4 documents were marked as Exs.B.1 to B.4. 15. Upon consideration of the pleadings and the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion on issue No.1 in the suit for specific performance that the agreement of sale cum GPA with possession dated 11.06.2009 was true, valid and binding on the agreement vendor. On the second issue the trial Court held that the agreement of sale was not a nominal document and that it was not executed as security for the investment made by the agreement purchaser for the feature film “Keka”. On issue No.4 in the suit for specific performance, the trial Court concluded that the agreement purchaser was always ready and willing to perform his obligations and that the transaction was a concluded contract entitling the plaintiff to a decree for specific performance. On issue No.6 the Court below held that the deed of cancellation of G.P.A, dated 03.03.2010 was illegal and not binding on the agreement purchaser. 16. On Issue No.3 in the suit for specific performance, which revolved around the alleged loss of possession of the property on 04.03.2010, the Court below held that the agreement vendor took forceful possession of the suit property. On account of this finding on Issue No.3 in the suit for specific performance, the Court below answered Issue No.1 in the suit for perpetual injunction filed by the agreement vendor that he was not entitled to an injunction. 17. On Issue No.5 in the suit for specific performance, the Court below held that as the agreement purchaser lost possession, he was not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. Therefore, eventually, the Court below held that the suit for specific performance and recovery of possession was liable to be decreed and that the suit for injunction filed by the agreement vendor was liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court below decreed the suit for specific performance and dismissed the suit for perpetual injunction. Hence the above appeals. 18. Assailing the judgment and decrees of the Court below, it is contended by Mr. Accordingly, the Court below decreed the suit for specific performance and dismissed the suit for perpetual injunction. Hence the above appeals. 18. Assailing the judgment and decrees of the Court below, it is contended by Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that the plaint in the suit for specific performance did not comply with the requirements as stipulated in Form Nos.47 and 48 of the Appendix-A to the Civil Procedure Code, read with Order VI Rule 3 CPC; that the fact that the transaction between the parties was one of monetary dealings and not actually an agreement for sale of immovable property was not appreciated by the court below; that the nature of the transaction was actually self evident from the recitals contained in the document dated 11.06.2009 as well as the attendant circumstances; that the fact that the agreement purchaser came to Court with a false case was borne out even by his own documents; that it was extremely unnatural for a person to offer for sale, a property, whose market value was indicated in the agreement of sale itself to be more than Rs.7 crores, for a sale consideration of Rs.3 crores; that it is also unnatural for an agreement purchaser, who claims to have paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.3 crores even by the date of the agreement of sale cum GPA, viz., 11.06.2009, to pay an additional amount of Rs.80,00,000/- to a prior agreement holder cum tenant by name P.R.K. Rao; that none of the payments made by way of cheques and Demand Drafts indicated in Clause 2 of the agreement of sale was ever paid to the agreement vendor, but were paid to the account of Chitra Movies showing thereby that the transaction was not one for the sale and purchase of immovable property; that even the recitals contained in the agreement of sale were falsified by the pleadings and evidence let in by the agreement purchaser; that while the pleadings of the agreement purchaser proceeded on the footing that the property was free of encumbrances, there was intrinsic evidence in the agreement itself about the payment made to the lender; that the recitals contained in the agreement of sale as though vacant possession was delivered is falsified by the very case of the agreement purchaser to the effect that he paid Rs.80,00,000/- to the tenant and got him vacated and took over possession; that as per Clause-2 of the agreement, a huge amount of Rs.1,67,75,000/- was paid by way of cash on 11.06.2009, but the agreement purchaser was not even an income tax assessee and he could not produce any proof to show that he could mobilize so much of cash; that though the recitals contained in the agreement of sale indicate as though the original documents of title were handed over to the agreement purchaser, it is admitted by the agreement purchaser that the original documents were with the Finance Company; that the trial Court committed a serious error in recording a finding against the agreement vendor on all issues, only on the basis of a statement made by the agreement vendor in his caveat petition that there was an agreement of sale cum GPA; that the trial Court committed a serious error in relying upon just one telephone bill to come to the conclusion that the agreement purchaser was put in possession of the suit property; that the trial Court committed a blunder in relying upon an entry in the ledger account to come to the conclusion that a huge amount of cash was paid on the date of the agreement of sale; that the trial Court ought to have appreciated that the entries in the ledger account cannot be taken to be primary evidence unless corroborated by other materials, and that therefore, the decree for specific performance is wholly unsustainable and liable to be set at naught. 19. In response, it is contended by Mr. N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-agreement purchaser that the execution of the agreement of sale cum GPA on 11.06.2009 was categorically admitted by the agreement vendor; that once the execution of a document is admitted, the onus shifts to the agreement vendor to show that the nature of the transaction was different; that in any case what was sought to be proved by the agreement vendor was contrary to the recitals contained in the agreement of sale cum GPA, and hence, the same was impermissible under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; that in the affidavit filed by the agreement vendor in support of his caveat petition, he categorically admitted the execution of the agreement of sale, but projected only one grievance, viz., that the balance of sale consideration was not paid; that the case of the agreement vendor would not fall under the proviso-(6) of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; that even the letter written by the Bank under Ex.A.4 dated 29.12.2009 showed that the agreement purchaser was authorised to collect the title deeds after clearing the loan; that the agreement vendor was actually enrolled as an Advocate and hence he cannot claim ignorance of the nature of the transaction; that even as per the evidence of the agreement vendor as DW.1, what was cancelled was only the GPA and not the agreement of sale; that the ledger accounts relied upon by the agreement purchaser to prove payment of a cash amount of Rs.1,67,75,000/- on 11.06.2009, was part of the income tax return filed by the agreement purchaser and the said ledger accounts were also certified by the auditors; that therefore the payment of sale consideration of Rs.3 crores partly by way of cheques and Demand Drafts and partly by way of cash stood proved by these documents and that therefore, the trial Court was right in decreeing the suit for specific performance. 20. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. From the rival contentions, it is seen that the following points arise for determination in the above appeals: 1. 20. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. From the rival contentions, it is seen that the following points arise for determination in the above appeals: 1. Whether the plaint in the suit for specific performance, viz., O.S.No.125 of 2010 did not adhere to the stipulations contained in Form Nos.47 & 48 of Appendix-A read with Order VI Rule 3 of C.P.C, and if so, whether the suit was liable to be thrown out on that score? 2. Whether the suit document Ex.A.1 was intended to be an agreement of sale cum GPA with possession or whether it was executed merely as a security for the investments made by the agreement purchaser in the production and distribution of films by the 2nd defendant, who is the son-in-law of the agreement vendor? 3. Whether it was open to the agreement vendor, after having admitted the execution of the agreement of sale, to go back on the recitals contained therein and set up a different case, especially in the light of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? 4. Whether the agreement purchaser has made out a case for specific performance of the agreement of sale and whether the discretion to decree the suit for specific performance was properly exercised by the trial Court? 5. Whether the agreement vendor was entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, especially in the light of the allegation by the agreement purchaser that he was forcibly dispossessed on 04.03.2010? 6. To what relief the parties are entitled? Point No.1: 21. The first point arising for determination is whether the plaint in the suit for specific performance, viz., O.S.No.125 of 2010 did not adhere to the stipulations contained in Form Nos.47 & 48 of Appendix-A read with Order VI Rule 3 of C.P.C, and if so, whether the suit was liable to be thrown out on that score? 22. The contention of Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that Order VI Rule 3 of the Code requires the Forms in Appendix-A to be used as nearly as may be, for all pleadings. Appendix-A of the code prescribes two forms in Form Nos.47 & 48 for use in a suit for specific performance. Paragraphs-2 and 3 of Form No.47 read as follows: “2. Appendix-A of the code prescribes two forms in Form Nos.47 & 48 for use in a suit for specific performance. Paragraphs-2 and 3 of Form No.47 read as follows: “2. The plaintiff has applied to the defendant specifically to perform the agreement on his part, but the defendant has not done so. 3. The plaintiff has been and still is ready and willing specifically to perform the agreement on his part of which the defendant has at notice.” 23. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Form No.48 read as follows: “2. On the _________ day of __________, 19___20___, the plaintiff tendered ___________rupees to the defendant, and demanded a transfer of the said property by a sufficient instrument. 3. On the ___________ day of _________, 19___20___, the plaintiff again demanded such transfer. (Or the defendant refused to transfer the same to the plaintiff.)” 24. In Ouseph Varghese v. Joseph Aley (1970) 1 SCR 921 ) which was cited with approval in Abdul Khader Rowther v. P.K. Sara Bai (1989) 4 SCC 313 ), the Supreme Court held that a suit for specific performance has to conform to the requirements prescribed in Form Nos.47 & 48 of Appendix-A to the Code and that it is incumbent upon the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance to plead that he applied to the defendant specifically to perform the agreement, but the defendant had not done so. 25. Therefore, relying upon paragraphs 2 and 3 of Form Nos. 47 & 48 of Appendix-A to the Code and the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, it is contended by Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the plaint in O.S.No.125 of 2010 did not contain a pleading to the effect that the plaintiff made a demand, but the defendant failed. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the suit for specific performance, which did not contain the most fundamental pleading of requirement, ought to have been dismissed without much ado. 26. We have carefully considered the above submission. 27. At the outset it should be pointed out that Order VI Rule 3 CPC merely advocates the use of Forms provided in Appendix-A, “as nearly as may be”. 26. We have carefully considered the above submission. 27. At the outset it should be pointed out that Order VI Rule 3 CPC merely advocates the use of Forms provided in Appendix-A, “as nearly as may be”. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Form Nos.47 and 48 are intended to serve two purposes, viz., (1) to demonstrate that the agreement purchaser was ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation; and (2) also to demonstrate that the defendant was either unwilling to perform his obligation or positively refused to perform his obligation under the agreement. To put it in other words, the averments in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Form Nos.47 & 48 are intended to demonstrate (1) the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff; and (2) the unwillingness or refusal on the part of the defendant to perform his obligations. These two paragraphs of Form Nos.47 & 48 are correlatable to Section 16 (c) and the Explanation there under, of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 28. Therefore, what is required to be seen by the Court is as to whether the requirements of Section 16(c) are satisfied or not. If these requirements are satisfied otherwise than by way of a parrot like repetition of the contents of Form Nos.47 and 48, then there can be no objection on the basis of Form Nos.47 and 48. 29. In the case on hand, the specific plea of the plaintiff is that all that was required to be done by him pursuant to the agreement of sale had already been done and the same was also evidenced by the agreement of sale itself. After all, the only obligation imposed upon a purchaser under an agreement of sale is the payment of sale consideration, within the stipulated time. Similarly the obligations imposed upon the agreement vendor are- (1) the execution of the sale deed; and (2) the handing over of possession. 30. In the case on hand, the plaintiff specifically pleaded – (1) that the entire sale consideration had been paid by the date of execution of the agreement of sale, as evidenced by the recitals contained in the agreement itself; and (2) that the possession of the property had also been delivered. Therefore, the only obligation left over, if the case of the plaintiff was true, was the mere execution of a sale deed. Therefore, the only obligation left over, if the case of the plaintiff was true, was the mere execution of a sale deed. There was nothing left under the agreement of sale, for the plaintiff to do. Therefore, there is no use in the plaintiff pleading as an empty formality that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations, especially when his part of the obligations already stood performed, at least according to him. 31. Moreover, it is the admitted case of the agreement vendor himself that on 03.03.2010 he cancelled the GPA. By the time the suit was filed, agreement vendor had taken a positive stand that the nature of the transaction as reflected in Ex.A.1 was not one of sale and purchase of immovable property. Therefore, the failure of the plaintiff to incorporate the contents of Form Nos.47 & 48 at least as an empty formality, cannot be put against him. The decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants arose under different circumstances and the proposition of law laid down therein cannot be applied to a case of this nature where the entire sale consideration was claimed to have been paid and the purchaser also claimed to have been put in possession of the property. Hence, Point No.1 arising for determination has to be answered against the appellants. Point Nos.2 & 3: 32. The second point arising for determination is whether the suit document Ex.A.1 was intended to be an agreement of sale cum GPA or whether it was executed merely as a security for the investments made by the agreement purchaser in the production and distribution of films made by the 2nd defendant, who is the son-in-law of the agreement vendor. The third point arising for determination is whether it was open to the agreement vendor, after having admitted the execution of the agreement of sale, to go back on the recitals contained therein and set up a different case, especially in the light of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 33. We think we should first take up the third point for determination, since in terms of sequence we may not be able to move over to the second point, unless the law permits us in the light of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 34. 33. We think we should first take up the third point for determination, since in terms of sequence we may not be able to move over to the second point, unless the law permits us in the light of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 34. It is seen from the pleadings of the agreement vendor that the execution of the document dated 11.06.2009 is admitted by him. But his case is that the said document was a nominal document, intended to be a security for the investments made by the agreement purchaser in the production and distribution of feature films made by the 2nd defendant, who is son-in-law of the agreement vendor. 35. Chapter-VI of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with the exclusion of oral by documentary evidence. The said Chapter contains 10 sections, viz., Sections 91 to 100. Out of them, Sections 91 and 92 are of importance and relevance to the case on hand. 36. If reduced into simple terms, the rules contained in Section 91 can be summarised as follows: a. When the terms of a contract have been reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, except the document itself. This rule will apply even to all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document. b. When the terms of a contract have been reduced to the form of a document, secondary evidence of its contents may also be given in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions of the Act. c. In other words, whenever the terms of a contract have been reduced to the form of a document, there are only two methods by which evidence in proof of the terms of the contract may be given. They are (i) through the document itself; and (ii) through secondary evidence of the contents in cases where secondary evidence is admissible. 37. Even a cursory look at Section 91 would show that the same relates only to evidence in proof of the terms of the contract, which is reduced into writing. Section 91 has no application to statements of facts other than the facts referred to in the Section. This is made clear by Explanation-3 to Section 91. 37. Even a cursory look at Section 91 would show that the same relates only to evidence in proof of the terms of the contract, which is reduced into writing. Section 91 has no application to statements of facts other than the facts referred to in the Section. This is made clear by Explanation-3 to Section 91. Section 91 together with its Explanations read as follows: “91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of documents.– When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained. Explanation – 1, When a public officer is required by law to be appointed in writing, and when it is shown that any particular person has acted as such officer, the writing by which he is appointed need not be proved. Explanation – 2, This section applies equally to case in which the contracts, grants or dispositions of property referred to are contained in one document, and to cases in which they are contained in more documents than one. Explanation – 3, The statement, in any document whatever, of a fact other than the facts referred to in this section, shall not preclude the admission of oral evidence as to the same fact.” 38. In fact Illustrations (d) and (e) under Section 91 are of significance. Hence they are reproduced as follows: Illustration (d): ‘A’ contracts, in writing, with ‘B’, for the delivery of indigo upon certain terms. The contract mentions the fact that ‘B’ had paid ‘A’ the price of other indigo contracted for verbally on another occasion. Oral evidence is offered that no payment was made for the other indigo. The evidence is admissible. Illustration (e): ‘A’ gives ‘B’ receipt for money paid by B’. Oral evidence is offered of the payment. The evidence is admissible. 39. Oral evidence is offered that no payment was made for the other indigo. The evidence is admissible. Illustration (e): ‘A’ gives ‘B’ receipt for money paid by B’. Oral evidence is offered of the payment. The evidence is admissible. 39. Therefore, Section 91 is confined in its application to the evidence in proof of the terms of the contract. But what was sought to be done in this case by the agreement vendor (D.1) was – (1) to disprove the very label given to the contract; and (2) to show the circumstances surrounding the execution of the document and its true object and purpose. Therefore, Section 91 cannot be invoked successfully by the agreement purchaser (plaintiff) in this case. 40. Section 92 forbids the admission of any evidence of any oral agreement or statement for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from the terms of a contract reduced to the form of a document. There are six provisos to Section 92, each of which carves out an exception to the main rule. Section 92 reads as follow: 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement, – When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms: Proviso (1), – Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law: Proviso (2), – The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document: Proviso (3), – The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved: Proviso (4), – The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents: Proviso (5), – Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved: Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract: Proviso (6), – Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts.” 41. There are two fundamental requirements for the applicability of Section 92. They are – (1) the bar under Section 92 comes into play only after the terms of any contract reduced to the form of a document have been proved as per Section 91; and (2) the bar applies only when evidence is sought to be given for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from the terms of such contract. 42. Therefore, before invoking the bar under Section 92, the Court must see whether the terms of the contract reduced to the form of a document have been proved according to Section 91 or not. Once the terms of the contract are proved according to Section 91, no evidence of an oral agreement shall be admitted for the purpose of contradicting the terms of such contract, subject to the exceptions indicated in the six provisos. 43. The exceptions listed out in the six provisos to Section 92 can be summarised in simple terms as follows: a. Any fact such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration or mistake of fact or law may be proved so as to invalidate any document. 43. The exceptions listed out in the six provisos to Section 92 can be summarised in simple terms as follows: a. Any fact such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration or mistake of fact or law may be proved so as to invalidate any document. b. The existence of a separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent and which is also not in consistent with its terms may be proved. c. The existence of a separate oral agreement constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under a contract may be proved. d. The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify a contract may be proved except in cases where the contract is required by law to be in writing. e. Any usage or custom by which incidence not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved. f. Any fact, which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts, may be proved. 44. Two things are clear from the language employed in - Section 92. They are (1) that Section 92 comes into play only after the terms of a contract reduced into writing have been proved according to Section 91; and (2) that by virtue of the first proviso, any fact that would invalidate any document such as fraud, intimidation etc., may be proved. 45. If we apply those two fundamental rules to the case on hand, it will be clear (1) that the mere admission by the agreement vendor, of the execution of Ex.A.1 would not tantamount to proof of the terms of the contract; and (2) that this is a case where the agreement vendor seeks to prove a fact that would invalidate the document, in terms of the first proviso to Section 92. This is clear from the fact that according to the agreement purchaser, the entire sale consideration of Rs.3 crores had been paid. But according to the agreement vendor, all payments in the form of cheques and Demand Drafts were paid to the account of somebody else and the payment of Rs.1,67,75,000/- in the form of cash, was not received by him. But according to the agreement vendor, all payments in the form of cheques and Demand Drafts were paid to the account of somebody else and the payment of Rs.1,67,75,000/- in the form of cash, was not received by him. Therefore, the factum of want or failure of consideration that would invalidate Ex.A.1 can always be proved by the agreement vendor and hence Section 92 cannot be invoked in the case on hand. Therefore, the third point arising for consideration should be answered against the 1st respondent/agreement purchaser/plaintiff. 46. The answer to point No.3 would now pave the way for us to take up for consideration Point No.2 arising for determination, viz., as to whether the suit document Ex.A.1 was a nominal document executed only as security for the investments made in the production and distribution of films. 47. In order to find an answer to point No.2, it may be necessary to go back to the pleadings. The agreement purchaser, who was the plaintiff in O.S.No.125 of 2010 for specific performance averred in his plaint that the suit schedule property was offered to be sold for a sale consideration of Rs.3 crores and that upon acceptance of the offer by the plaintiff, an agreement of sale cum GPA with possession was executed and that the document was witnessed by the agreement vendor’s daughter and his son-in-law. It was also claimed in the plaint that the entire sale consideration was paid as detailed in Clause 2 of the agreement. It was further claimed that out of the sale consideration, a sum of Rs.1,32,25,000/- was paid by way of cheques and Demand Drafts to the nominees of the 1st defendant even before the execution of the agreement and that the balance of Rs.1,67,75,000/- was paid by way of cash on the date of the agreement. It was also claimed in the plaint that after entering into the agreement of sale, the plaintiff (agreement purchaser) came to know of a pre-existing agreement between the agreement vendor and one Mr. P.R.K. Rao and that the agreement vendor had received a part of the sale consideration of Rs.90 lakhs from him and that the plaintiff was forced to settle the matter with Sri P.R.K. Rao by making payment of the said amount. P.R.K. Rao and that the agreement vendor had received a part of the sale consideration of Rs.90 lakhs from him and that the plaintiff was forced to settle the matter with Sri P.R.K. Rao by making payment of the said amount. In other words, the agreement purchaser claims to have paid a sum of Rs.90 lakhs over and above the total sale consideration of Rs.3 lakhs. In Ex.A.1 agreement of sale cum GPA, about 8 payments made by way of Demand Drafts or cheques during the period from 15.10.2008 to 19.05.2009 are reflected. Out of them, 7 payments are also reflected in the ledger account of a proprietary concern by name ‘Asian Timber Estates’, of which, the plaintiff’s wife Padmavathi Chedalavada was the proprietrix. This ledger account of Asian Timber Estates for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 was marked by the plaintiff himself as Ex.A.33 and the entries contained therein related to Chitram Movies, of which the agreement vendor’s son-in-law, who was arrayed as the 2nd defendant in the suit, was the proprietor. It will be useful to furnish in a tabular column, the details of the 7 payments enlisted in Clause 2 of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale and the person whose name is reflected as the payee under Ex.A.33. Cheque/D.D.No. & date Name of the Bank Amount in Rs. Name of the payee as reflected in Ex.A.33 899638 Dt.15.10.08 Indian Bank 54,00,000 Chitram Movies Proprietor D. Teja (D.2) 899643 Dt.22.10.08 Indian Bank 33,00,000 Chitram Movies Proprietor D. Teja (D.2) 435282 Dt.22.10.08 ING Vysya Bank 24,00,000 Asian Theatre Pvt. Ltd., being cheque paid to Chitram Movies from Asian Theatre Pvt. Ltd., on behalf of Asian Timber Estates. 784832 Dt.22.10.08 Andhra Bank 1,00,000 Cine Planet Kompally being cheque paid to Chitram Movies from Cine Planet on behalf of Asian Timber Estates. 009651 Dt.21.10.08 HDFC Bank 1,75,000 Mayuri Theatre Being Cheque Paid To Chitram Movies from Mayuri Theatre on behalf of Asian Timber Estates. 7519993 Dt.20.10.08 S.B.H. 2,00,000 P.V.C. Cinemax, Nalgonda being cheque paid to Chitram Movies from PVC Cinemax. 538157 Dt.22.10.08 Andhra Bank 1,50,000 Manohar Theatre, Secunderabad being cheque paid to Chitram Movies from Manohar Theatre. 48. The eighth payment of Rs.15 lakhs through Cheque No.454266, dated 19.05.2009 drawn on Central Bank of India, is not reflected in the ledger account under Ex.A.33, since the same relates to the financial year from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. 49. 538157 Dt.22.10.08 Andhra Bank 1,50,000 Manohar Theatre, Secunderabad being cheque paid to Chitram Movies from Manohar Theatre. 48. The eighth payment of Rs.15 lakhs through Cheque No.454266, dated 19.05.2009 drawn on Central Bank of India, is not reflected in the ledger account under Ex.A.33, since the same relates to the financial year from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. 49. Clause 2 of Ex.A.1 read with the entries contained in Ex.A.33 would show that all payments through cheques or Demand Drafts made long prior to the execution of the agreement of sale, were made to a Movie Production and/or Distribution Company or to the persons to whom Chitram Movies represented by the 2nd defendant owed money. 50. If we keep in mind the very evidence of the plaintiff as detailed above and come back to the written statement of the agreement vendor, it can be seen that the specific case of the agreement vendor was that the plaintiff was financing the production and distribution of feature films and that the plaintiff had a working relationship with the 2nd defendant. In other words, the specific case of the agreement vendor (1st defendant) is what stood actually proved by the plaintiff’s own document Ex.A.33. 51. As a matter of fact, the agreement purchaser (the plaintiff) initially filed one affidavit in lieu of chief examination and filed Exs.A.1 to A.12 along with the same. He (PW.1) was cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants on 28.07.2014. Thereafter the plaintiff chose to file a further affidavit in lieu of chief examination and filed Exs.A.13 to A.43. It was in the additional chief affidavit filed after the cross-examination that the plaintiff referred to the payments reflected in Clause-2 of Ex.A.1 and their correlation to the entries in Ex.A.33. In the further affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, PW.1 admitted that there was an agreement dated 21.10.2008 between Chitram Movies belonging to the 2nd defendant and Sri Tirumala Tirupati Venkateswaraa Films, of which the plaintiff’s wife was the proprietrix. He also stated that there were business transactions and after finalisation of accounts with reference to the feature film “Keka”, the defendant No.2 became liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,06,61,033/-. He claimed that towards repayment of the said amount, the 2nd defendant (son-in-law of the agreement vendor) issued a cheque for Rs.50,00,000/-, which got bounced. He also stated that there were business transactions and after finalisation of accounts with reference to the feature film “Keka”, the defendant No.2 became liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,06,61,033/-. He claimed that towards repayment of the said amount, the 2nd defendant (son-in-law of the agreement vendor) issued a cheque for Rs.50,00,000/-, which got bounced. But according to PW.1 he did not take any steps after the dishonour of the cheque because of the request made by the 2nd defendant. Without taking any action for the dishonour of the cheque issued by the 2nd defendant, PW.1 claimed in his further chief affidavit that he requested his wife to issue a cheque bearing No.454266, dated 19.05.2009 for Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of the 2nd defendant. 52. Therefore, the plaintiff’s own case made it clear that there were business transactions and that despite the 2nd defendant becoming liable to pay Rs.1,06,61,033/-, he made his wife issued a cheque to the 2nd defendant for Rs.15 lakhs, in spite of the cheque issued by the 2nd defendant for Rs.50 lakhs getting dishonoured. 53. During cross-examination, PW.1 made a very crucial admission, which is as follows: “I am doing business in Cinema Distribution and Production since the last 25 to 30 years. One Chitram Movies is also indulged in Cinema Distribution and Production business. There were monetary transactions between me and Chitram Movies since 2007 which are connected to film business only. Defendant No.2 is the proprietor of Chitram Movies. I know defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 is the father-in-law of defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 was introduced to me by defendant No.2 when I insisted defendant no.2 to pay the money due by him to me.” 54. The above admissions made by the plaintiff during cross-examination make it clear that the agreement vendor was brought into the picture, when the 2nd defendant was unable to pay the amounts due to the plaintiff’s wife on business transactions. This is exactly the case pleaded by the 1st defendant, in relation to the circumstances under which Ex.A.1 agreement of sale was executed. 55. In the course of cross-examination conducted after PW.1 filed additional chief affidavit and filed Exs.A.13 to A.43, he admitted that there were two proprietary concerns one under the name and style of Asian Timber Estates and another under the name and style of Tirumala Tirupathi Venkateswaraa Films, of which the plaintiff’s wife was the proprietrix. 55. In the course of cross-examination conducted after PW.1 filed additional chief affidavit and filed Exs.A.13 to A.43, he admitted that there were two proprietary concerns one under the name and style of Asian Timber Estates and another under the name and style of Tirumala Tirupathi Venkateswaraa Films, of which the plaintiff’s wife was the proprietrix. PW.1 admitted that he was not even an income tax assessee and that all payments were made by the proprietary concerns of his wife to the 2nd defendant or on his account. Therefore, it is clear that the document Ex.A.1 was brought into existence for the purpose of discharging the liability of the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff’s wife. 56. As a matter of fact, if the plaintiff had come up with a case that there were business dealings and that since the 2nd defendant could not repay the amount, his father-in-law agreed to sell the property towards repayment of the debt, by adjusting the amount due by the 2nd defendant towards part payment of sale consideration, then the plaintiff could have been taken to have come up with a true case. But in the plaint he pleaded a right royal case without any reference to the business dealings, the liability of the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff’s wife and the manner in which the 1st defendant came into picture. Therefore, we think the plaintiff did not come to Court with clean hands and the defence set up by the 1st defendant that Ex.A.1 was intended to be a security for the investments made by the plaintiff and his wife in the films produced or directed by the 2nd defendant, is more probable than the case of the plaintiff. 57. The time tested theory that “witnesses may lie but the circumstances may not” is generally applied by the Courts in criminal jurisprudence. But it may apply even to this case. Seven payments enlisted in Clause 2 of Ex.A.1-agreement of sale, made by way of cheques or Demand Drafts, were dated 15.10.2008, 20.10.2008, 21.10.2008 and 22.10.2008. The plaintiff himself filed as Ex.A.28, the agreement dated 21.10.2008 entered into between M/s. Chitram Movies, represented by the 2nd defendant and Tirumala Tirupati Venkateswaraa Films, represented by the plaintiff’s wife. The said agreement was for the grant of distribution rights of the feature film “Keka” directed by the 2nd defendant. 58. The plaintiff himself filed as Ex.A.28, the agreement dated 21.10.2008 entered into between M/s. Chitram Movies, represented by the 2nd defendant and Tirumala Tirupati Venkateswaraa Films, represented by the plaintiff’s wife. The said agreement was for the grant of distribution rights of the feature film “Keka” directed by the 2nd defendant. 58. It is not a sheer coincidence that the distributorship agreement is dated 21.10.2008 and four out of the payments listed in Clause 2 of Ex.A.1-agreement of sale were made on 22.10.2008, one payment was made on 20.10.2008 and another payment was made on 21.10.2008. 59. The story sought to be built up by the plaintiff that the business dealings were separate and the agreement for the purchase of the property was different, is belied by the circumstances. If both the transactions are independent, eight cheques/demand draft reflected in Clause 2 of Ex.A.1 agreement should not have gone to Chitram Movies represented by the 2nd defendant are to persons to whom he owed money. 60. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the suit document Ex.A.1 was not intended to be an agreement of sale, but was executed as a security for the investments made by the wife of the agreement purchaser in the production and distribution of films by the 2nd defendant, the son-in-law of the 1st defendant agreement vendor. Hence, the second point is answered against the 1st respondent-agreement purchaser. Point No.4: 61. Point No.4 arising for consideration is as to whether the agreement purchaser, assuming that the suit document Ex.A-1 is an agreement of sale, has made out a case for specific performance and whether the discretion to grant the relief of specific performance was properly exercised by the Trial Court or not. 62. It is well-settled that to be entitled to a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale of immoveable property, the plaintiff should aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract, which are to be performed by him other than the terms, the performance of which, has been prevented or waived by the defendant. This is in view of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Unless a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance gains entry into the first gate prescribed in Section 16(c), his journey will get aborted even in the first lap. This is in view of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Unless a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance gains entry into the first gate prescribed in Section 16(c), his journey will get aborted even in the first lap. 63. This is a case where the agreement purchaser-plaintiff had taken a positive stand that he has paid the entire sale consideration under Ex.A-1 agreement of sale. There was nothing more required of the plaintiff to be done under the agreement of sale. In other words, the plaintiff in the case on hand will fall under the category of a person “who has performed” and not under the category of a person “who has always been ready and willing to perform”, under Section 16(c). 64. Therefore, let us see whether the plaintiff has actually proved the payment of entire sale consideration either on the date of execution or on the date of the registration of Ex.A-1. 65. As per the plaint, the plaintiff paid a total amount of Rs.1,32,255,000/- by way of cheques or demand drafts, as enlisted in clause 2 of Ex.A-1, to the nominees of the agreement vendor and that he had paid cash of Rs.1,67,75,000/- on the date of execution of the agreement. 66. While dealing with point No.3, we have recorded a finding, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence that the payment of Rs.1,32,25,000/- by way of cheques and demand drafts was made during the period from 15-10-2008 to 19-5-2009, by a proprietary concern, of which the plaintiff’s wife was the proprietrix and that these payments were made in favour of Chitram Movies represented by the 2nd defendant, who is the son-in-law of the agreement vendor. We have also recorded a finding on the basis of Ex.A-28 and Ex.A-33 that these payments were in relation to a business transaction relating to the distribution of a film directed by the 2nd defendant. 67. At the cost of repetition, it should be pointed out that though the agreement of sale Ex.A-1 was executed on 11-6-2009, the entire payment of Rs.1,32,25,000/- paid by way of cheques and demand drafts, as detailed in clause 2 of Ex.A-1, were made long prior to the date of execution, as can be summed up as follows: (i) Rs.54,00,000/- on 15-10-2008 (ii) Rs.2,00,000/- on 20-10-2018 (iii) Rs.1,75,000/- on 21-10-2008 (iv) Rs.59,50,000/- on 22-10-2008 (v) Rs.15,00,000/- on 19-05-2009 68. In other words, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.3,00,00,000/- fixed under Ex.A-1, a sum of Rs.1,17,25,000/- is claimed to have been paid towards part of the sale consideration, at least eight months before the date of execution of Ex.A-1. No prudent buyer would pay more than 1/3rd of the total sale consideration in October, 2008 and have an agreement of sale executed in June, 2009 after a period of eight months. In any case, the documents establish that these payments were made towards distribution of a film. 69. For the present, let us keep aside the purpose for which the payments by way of cheques and demand drafts were made and see whether at least the payment of cash of Rs.1,67,75,000/- stood proved. 70. During cross-examination on 28-8-2014, the plaintiff as P.W.1 admitted that he was not an Income Tax assessee. The Income Tax Returns filed by him as Ex.A-32 along with the copy of the ledger account filed as Ex.A-33 belonged to the plaintiff’s wife Padmavathi. She was not examined as a witness, to speak about the entries made in the ledger account Ex.A-33. 71. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff did not come to Court with a pleading in his plaint that the entire sale consideration was paid out of his wife’s account. It was only when the plaintiff was confronted during cross-examination on 28-7-2014, that he chose to file an additional chief-affidavit along with Income Tax Returns and weaved a new story that the payments were made from the account of his wife. 72. In any case, neither P.W.1 nor his wife spoke about the entry in Ex.A-33 relating to the payment of cash of Rs.1,67,75,000/- to the 1st defendant on 11-6-2009 or thereafter. It is needless to point out that the mere marking of a statement of accounts or books of accounts, is not sufficient to prove the entries therein. A person producing books of accounts is obliged to speak about the entries on which he relies upon and to prove those entries. He must first prove that these books of accounts were maintained in the ordinary course of business. He must then prove the very entry relating to payment. 73. A person producing books of accounts is obliged to speak about the entries on which he relies upon and to prove those entries. He must first prove that these books of accounts were maintained in the ordinary course of business. He must then prove the very entry relating to payment. 73. In this case, the proprietrix of the concern whose ledger account was marked as Ex.A-33 was not examined either to show that the books were maintained in the ordinary course of business or that a particular entry relating to payment of cash was genuine. 74. As a matter of fact, the strict rule of evidence relating to the entries in the books of accounts of banks and bankers, was actually causing a great deal of hardship to the banks. Therefore, the Bankers Books of Evidence Act, 1891 was enacted. Under Section 4 of this Act, a certified copy of any entry in the bankers books shall, in all legal proceedings, be received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry and they shall be admitted as evidence of all the matters, transactions and accounts recorded therein. But this facility is not available to business establishments which do not fall within the definition of the expressions “bank” or “banker” under the said Act. 75. Apart from the fact that the proprietrix or any responsible officer of the concern whose ledger account was marked as Ex.A-33, was not examined, the entry therein was also not sufficient to prove the payment of cash of Rs.1,67,75,000/- on 11-6-2009. This can be seen from certain things that are borne out by record. 76. As we have stated earlier, the agreement purchaser-plaintiff filed an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination on 10-7-2014 and marked only Exs.A-1 to A-12. He was cross-examined on 28-7-2014 and confronted about his ability to pay the sale consideration of a huge amount of Rs. 3 crores. Thereafter, he filed a further affidavit in lieu of additional chief-examination on 12-8-2014 and filed Exs.A-13 to A-43. Keeping this in mind, let us go to Exs.A-32 and A-33. 77. Ex.A-32 is ITR-V Form filed by the plaintiff’s wife for the Assessment Year 2009-10, relating to the Financial Year 2008-09. It was actually filed on 30-9-2009, nearly about three months after the date of Ex.A-1 viz., 11-6-2009. Keeping this in mind, let us go to Exs.A-32 and A-33. 77. Ex.A-32 is ITR-V Form filed by the plaintiff’s wife for the Assessment Year 2009-10, relating to the Financial Year 2008-09. It was actually filed on 30-9-2009, nearly about three months after the date of Ex.A-1 viz., 11-6-2009. Therefore, it was within the control of the plaintiff to prepare the books of accounts in such a manner and file the Income Tax Return, so as to prove the payment of cash of a huge amount. Anyway we would not even go to the extent of holding that the plaintiff made his wife prepare the books of accounts in such a manner as to accommodate an entry relating to the payment of a huge amount by way of cash. 78. It can be seen from the ITR-V Form filed as Ex.A-32 that the gross total income reflected therein was just Rs.27,89,618/-. The trading account for the year ending 31-3-2009 and the profit and loss account for the year ending 31-3-2009 as well as the balance sheet as on 31-3-2009 are enclosed to ITR-V Form. As we have indicated earlier, at least about Rs.1,17,25,000/- is stated in Ex.A-1 to have been paid in October, 2008. Therefore, these payments should be reflected on the side of assets in the balance sheet as on 31-3-2009, enclosed to Ex.A-32. In the assets column of the balance sheet as on 31-3-2009, only one item is reflected as investments and that was in Eshaan International Private Limited to the tune of Rs.32,74,616/-. In the assets column of the balance sheet forming part of Ex.A-32, a lot of amounts are shown as – (i) advances to suppliers, (ii) loans and advances and (iii) sundry debtors. The column relating to loans and advances and sundry debtors alone are of huge magnitude so as to accommodate the payments made in October, 2008. 79. ITR-V Form relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11 and Financial Year 2009-10 filed by the plaintiff’s wife Padmavathi was marked as Ex.A-43. If cash payment of Rs.1,67,75,000/- had actually been made on 11-6-2009 as stated in Ex.A-1 agreement of sale, this payment should be reflected in the trading or profit and loss account or balance sheet for the period from 01-4-2009 to 31-3-2010. 80. But ITR-V Form (Ex.A-43) discloses the gross total income as only Rs.34,32,886/-. If cash payment of Rs.1,67,75,000/- had actually been made on 11-6-2009 as stated in Ex.A-1 agreement of sale, this payment should be reflected in the trading or profit and loss account or balance sheet for the period from 01-4-2009 to 31-3-2010. 80. But ITR-V Form (Ex.A-43) discloses the gross total income as only Rs.34,32,886/-. Though the gross profit is indicated in the profit and loss account to be Rs.2,23,43,052/-, the assets column in the balance sheet as at 31-3-2010 does not disclose any investment other than the one made in Eshaan International Private Limited. In fact, under the heading “other current assets” in the assets column of the balance sheet as at 31-3-2010, an amount of Rs.10,71,77,972/- is shown as loans and advances. If cash payment of Rs.1,67,75,000/- had been made on 11-6-2009 towards purchase of a property and an agreement of sale cum GPA with possession had been executed, the payment should have been shown as an investment and not as “loan or advance”. The Schedules to the balance sheet are not filed as part of Ex.A-32 or Ex.A-43. Therefore, the alleged payment of Rs.1,67,75,000/- cannot be correlated to Exx. A-33 or A-43. 81. Interestingly, an extract of the ledger account under the heading “advance for purchase of house” for the period from 01-4-2009 to 31-3-2010 has been marked as part of Ex.A-43. But Ex.A-43 is only ITR-V Form. Normally only three things are attached to a ITR-V Form. They are - (i) the computation of total income, (ii) profit and loss account and (iii) balance sheet. An extract from the ledger account relating to a particular expense or investment is never attached to ITR-V Form. Therefore, this ledger account could not have been marked as part of Ex.A-43. 82. It is in the extract of the ledger account of Asian Timber Estates, of which the wife of the plaintiff was the proprietrix, that an entry is found as though the cash payment of Rs.1,67,75,000/- was made on 11-6-2009. This extract contains details of payments totalling to Rs.4,21,74,546/- and this extract of ledger account is certified by the Chartered Accountant as a true extract. This extract contains details of payments totalling to Rs.4,21,74,546/- and this extract of ledger account is certified by the Chartered Accountant as a true extract. There are three difficulties about this extract of the ledger account viz., (i) that it could not have been filed as part of Ex.A-43, as it never goes along with the ITR-V Form, (ii) that the Chartered Accountant who certified the same as a true extract was not examined and (iii) that as against the claim of the plaintiff that the total sale consideration for the purchase of the house was Rs.3,00,00,000/-, the payments reflected in this extract of the ledger account totals to Rs.4,21,74,546/-. 83. A careful look at Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-43 read with the oral evidence of the plaintiff would show that there are three different amounts. They are: (i) as per Ex.A-1, the total sale consideration is Rs.3,00,00,000/-, (ii) as per Ex.A-43, the total sale consideration paid was Rs.4,21,74,546/- and (iii) as per Annexure-1A to the agreement of sale Ex.A-1, the market value of the property was Rs.7,72,30,000/-. 84. It must be pointed out that whenever a sale deed relating to immoveable property is executed and registered, it is always accompanied by a statement of declaration of market value in Annexure-1A, for the purpose of prevention of undervaluation. In Ex.A-1, there is Annexure-1A which indicates the market value to be Rs.7,72,30,000/-. 85. Therefore, it is clear that the market value was 2½ times more than the stated consideration and that the amounts actually paid were 1½ times the stated consideration. 86. Apart from the fact that the extract of the ledger account of Asian Timber Estates could not have been marked – (i) as part of ITR-V Form filed as Ex.A-43, (ii) without examining the proprietrix of Asian Timber Estates and (iii) without examining the Chartered Accountant who certified the same to be a true extract, the entry itself was not proved in a manner known to law. No bank pass book was furnished to show cash withdrawal to such an extent. In fact, the law prohibits under Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the payment of any amount in excess of Rs.20,000/- by way of cash. No bank pass book was furnished to show cash withdrawal to such an extent. In fact, the law prohibits under Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the payment of any amount in excess of Rs.20,000/- by way of cash. Though the occasions like the purchase of immoveable property under certain circumstances may not fall within the mischief of Section 269SS, the responsibility of the plaintiff is much more in cases of this nature to show – (i) the availability of such a huge amount in cash and (ii) the payment of such an amount in cash. 87. In any case, if cash payment had been made as reflected in the extract of the ledger account marked (or sneaked) as Ex.A-43, the same would get carried over to the balance sheet as at 31-3-2010 under the appropriate heading. The only heading to which this payment could probably fit in, in the balance sheet is “loans and advances”. 88. Therefore, we hold that there is absolutely no evidence to establish the payment of cash of Rs.1,67,75,000/- on 11-6-2009. If the payment of this amount does not stand established, the case of the plaintiff-agreement purchaser would not fall under the category of a person “who has performed” his part of the obligations in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, so as to entitle him to get a decree for specific performance. 89. As we have pointed out earlier, a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance should prove in terms of Section 16(c) that either he has already performed or he was ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations. This case will not fall under the category of “readiness and willingness”, since according to the plaintiff, the entire sale consideration had been paid. Therefore, the case would fall under the category of a person who “has performed” but this was not established by the plaintiff and hence he will not be entitled to a decree for specific performance. 90. Though our finding on the above aspect itself is sufficient, we shall also go now to the next aspect viz., whether the plaintiff was entitled in any case to the discretionary relief of specific performance. 91. We shall examine this aspect, after erasing out of our mind the findings on the other points and after taking a presumption in favour of the agreement purchaser-plaintiff. 92. 91. We shall examine this aspect, after erasing out of our mind the findings on the other points and after taking a presumption in favour of the agreement purchaser-plaintiff. 92. Unlike other types of reliefs, the relief of specific performance is specifically declared by Section 20(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to be discretionary. Section 20(1) makes it clear that the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. However, the discretion of the Court is not arbitrary, but sound and reasonable and it is guided by judicial principles. What is more important is that the discretion of the Court is capable of correction by a Court of Appeal. 93. A Division Bench of the High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in B.Nemi Chand Jain v. G.Ravindran (2010 (2) CTC 7510, to which one of us (VRS, J.) was a party, held as follows: “120. Without elaborating on (i) what is a sound and reasonable exercise of discretion, and (ii) what are judicial principles that should guide the exercise of discretion and which are capable of correction by a Court of Appeal, sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 20, lay down three indications. They are as follows: (i) Under sub-section (2), the cases in which a Court may exercise the discretion not to decree specific performance are indicated. (ii) Under sub-section (3), the case in which the Court may exercise the discretion to grant specific performance, is indicated. (iii) In sub-section (4), a stray case where the Court shall not refuse specific performance, is indicated. 122. The cases in which the Court is entitled to exercise the discretion not to grant specific performance, as listed in sub-section (2) of Section 20 are as follows: (I) Cases where – (a) either the terms of the contract (b) or the conduct of the parties at the time of entering into the contract (c) or the other circumstances under which the contract was entered into, are such that the contract gives the plaintiff, an unfair advantage over the defendant. (II) Cases where the performance of the contract would involve some hardship on the defendant that he did not foresee, while the non-performance would involve no such hardship on the plaintiff. (II) Cases where the performance of the contract would involve some hardship on the defendant that he did not foresee, while the non-performance would involve no such hardship on the plaintiff. (III) Cases where the defendant entered into the contract under circumstances, which though not rendering the contract voidable, makes it inequitable to enforce the specific performance. 122. The test of “unfair advantage” prescribed under Clause (a) of sub-section (2) and the test of “hardship” prescribed under Clause (b) of sub-section (2), are qualified by the two Explanations under sub-section (2). By virtue of Explanations 1 and 2 - (i) The mere inadequacy of consideration would not constitute an unfair advantage or hardship. (ii) The mere fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant would not constitute an unfair advantage or hardship. (iii) The mere fact that the contract is improvident in its nature would not constitute an unfair advantage or hardship. (iv) The question whether the performance of the contract would involve hardship on the defendant, is to be determined only with reference to the circumstances existing at the time of the contract, except in cases where the hardship has resulted from any act of plaintiff subsequent to the contract. 123. …………………………………………………. 124. ………………………………………………… 125. ……………………………………………….. 126. ……………………………………………….. 127. In Parakunnan Veetill Joseph’s Son Mathew v. Nedumbara Kuruvila’s Son, 1987 Supp. SCC 340, the Supreme Court held as follows: “14. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, preserves judicial discretion of Courts as to decreeing specific performance. The Court should meticulously consider all facts and circumstances of the case. The Court is not bound to grant specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. The motive behind the litigation should also enter into the judicial verdict. The Court should take care to see that it is not used as an instrument of oppression to have an unfair advantage to the plaintiff.”” 94. The Court is not bound to grant specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. The motive behind the litigation should also enter into the judicial verdict. The Court should take care to see that it is not used as an instrument of oppression to have an unfair advantage to the plaintiff.”” 94. If we keep in mind the contours of the jurisdiction of this Court to grant a decree for specific performance and examine the facts of the case, even with a presumption that the plaint averments are true (which they are not) the following things would emerge: (i) Even as per Ex.A-1, the market value of the suit schedule property as on the date of agreement was Rs.7,72,30,000/-, but the total sale consideration for which it was agreed to be sold was Rs.3,00,00,000/- and the amount actually paid by the plaintiff towards payment to the agreement vendor together with the payments allegedly paid to P.R.K. Rao (prior agreement-holder) and to the Finance Company for discharge of loans was Rs.4,21,74,546/- as per Ex.A-43. (ii) Out of the total sale consideration of Rs.3,00,00,000/- stated in Ex.A-1, a sum of Rs.1,32,25,000/- had been paid by the plaintiff’s wife to the Film Company run by the 2nd defendant (son-in-law of the agreement vendor), long prior to the execution of the agreement of sale. (iii) The payment of Rs.1,67,75,000/- towards balance of sale consideration allegedly on 11-6-2009 was entirely by way of cash, to which there was no evidence. 95. Therefore, all the three ingredients of sub-section (2) of Section 20 go in favour of the 1st defendant agreement vendor (appellant herein). In other words, the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties at the time of entering into the contract and the circumstances under which the contract was entered into, are such that the contract gives the plaintiff an unfair advantage, as indicated in Section 20(2)(a). The performance of such a contract, as indicated by the circumstances, would involve serious hardship on the defendant, whereas its non-performance would involve no hardship on the plaintiff, which is the test laid down in Section 20(2)(b). The circumstances under which the contract was entered into make it inequitable to enforce specific performance and thus the test under Section 20(2)(c) also stands satisfied. 96. The circumstances under which the contract was entered into make it inequitable to enforce specific performance and thus the test under Section 20(2)(c) also stands satisfied. 96. We are conscious of the two explanations under sub-section (2) which make it clear that the mere inadequacy of consideration or the fact that the contract is onerous shall not be deemed to constitute an unfair advantage and that the question of hardship has to be determined with reference to the circumstances existing at the time of the contract. We have tested the facts of the case vis-à-vis Section 20(2), only with reference to the two explanations thereunder. 97. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that this is not at all a case where the Court may exercise the discretion to grant specific performance. On the other hand, this is a case where the Court has to exercise the discretion not to decree specific performance. Hence, point No.4 arising for determination is also answered in favour of the appellant/agreement vendor. Point No.5: 98. Point No.5 arising for determination is as to whether the agreement vendor was entitled to a decree of permanent injunction in his own suit O.S.No.128 of 2010, especially in the light of the allegation by the agreement purchaser (plaintiff in the suit for specific performance) that he was forcibly dispossessed on 04-3-2010. 99. Before proceeding to analyse whether the agreement vendor was entitled to succeed in his suit for injunction, it must be pointed out that on account of our findings on points 1 to 4 arising for consideration, the suit for specific performance is liable to be dismissed and the decree granted by the Trial Court is liable to be reversed. 100. The suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.125 of 2010 was actually filed on 11-3-2010. There is no dispute about the fact that as on that date viz., 11-3-2010, the agreement vendor was in possession of the suit property. This is borne out by the fact that the suit for specific performance was filed by the agreement purchaser on 9-3-2010, with an averment that he was forcibly dispossessed on 04-3-2010 and that he lodged a police complaint in Crime No.80/2010 and that he also filed a petition before the State Human Rights Commission on 08-3-2010. This is borne out by the fact that the suit for specific performance was filed by the agreement purchaser on 9-3-2010, with an averment that he was forcibly dispossessed on 04-3-2010 and that he lodged a police complaint in Crime No.80/2010 and that he also filed a petition before the State Human Rights Commission on 08-3-2010. But in the plaint as it was originally presented on 09-3-2010, the agreement purchaser did not seek a decree for recovery of possession nor did he seek a permanent injunction restraining the interference with possession. On the contrary, the agreement purchaser sought in the plaint as originally presented by him on 09-3-2010, only a decree for specific performance and decree of permanent injunction restraining alienation. 101. However, the agreement purchaser subsequently filed an application in I.A.No.2222 of 2010 for amendment of the prayer so as to include a prayer for delivery of physical and vacant possession of the suit property. This application was allowed on 01-10-2011. 102. If we have a look at the sequence of events pleaded by the plaintiff-agreement purchaser in his suit for specific performance, it can be seen that – (i) the agreement was entered into on 11-6-2009, (ii) the GPA was cancelled on 03-3-2010, (iii) he was dispossessed on 04-3-2010, (iv) the police complaint was lodged on the same date, (v) the petition before the State Human Rights Commission was filed on 08-3-2010 and (vi) the plaint was presented on 09-3-2010. 103. If the above sequence of events is factually true, a person filing the plaint on 09-3-2010 would naturally incorporate a prayer for recovery of possession, in terms of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, especially since the suit was one for specific performance. But the agreement purchaser did not do so. However, subsequently he remedied the situation by including a prayer for recovery of possession. 104. The relief of recovery of possession sought by the agreement purchaser would fall under two categories viz., (i) recovery of possession sought by a person who was dispossessed without his consent otherwise than in due course of law and (ii) recovery of possession sought by a person as a consequence of the grant of a decree for specific performance. In this case, the agreement purchaser did not seek recovery of possession in terms of Section 6(1), so as to fall under the first category. In this case, the agreement purchaser did not seek recovery of possession in terms of Section 6(1), so as to fall under the first category. He sought recovery of possession along with the relief of specific performance and hence the case falls under the second category. 105. Once it is clear that the case falls under the second category, the entitlement of the plaintiff-agreement purchaser to possession, would depend upon his entitlement to the decree for specific performance. Once it is held that he was not entitled to a decree for specific performance, the agreement purchaser will not be entitled, as a natural corollary to a decree for possession. 106. That leads us to the conclusion that as on the date of presentation of the plaint for specific performance viz., 09-3-2010, the agreement vendor was in possession of the property and hence as on the date of filing of his suit for permanent injunction viz., 11-3-2010, he was entitled to prevent all others from interfering with his possession, except by way of a decree of Court. Since the agreement purchaser is held not entitled to a decree, for specific performance, he is not entitled to interfere with the possession of the suit property, especially when the possession is that of the actual owner viz., the agreement vendor. Hence, point No.5 arising for consideration, in relation to O.S.No.128 of 2010 is to be answered in favour of the agreement vendor. Point No.6: 107. In the light of our findings on all the five points arising for consideration, we are of the considered view that the judgment and decrees of the Court below are liable to be set aside and the suit for specific performance filed by the agreement purchaser is liable to be dismissed and the suit for permanent injunction filed by the agreement vendor is liable to be decreed. 108. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the common judgment and two decrees passed by the Court below in O.S.Nos.125 and 128 of 2010 are set aside. The suit for specific performance filed by the agreement purchaser in O.S.No.125 of 2010 will stand dismissed and the suit for permanent injunction filed by the agreement vendor in O.S.No.128 of 2010 will stand decreed. Costs would follow the event and the successful party is entitled to costs throughout. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.