JUDGMENT : Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1. This plaintiff's appeal is directed against impugned judgment and decree dated 31.01.2012, by which, the First Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Civil Suit No.9-B of 2009, has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 2. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,90,000/- along with interest at the rate of 21% with a total amount of Rs.6,33,000/- and also interest till the date of recovery on the pleading, inter alia, that the plaintiff carries on the business of sale and purchase of tractor under the trade name Vijaylakshmi Tractors. The plaintiff is a partnership firm, of which, Bajrang Agrawal and Mohan Agrawal are partners. It was pleaded that a tractor and a trolley, total value of Rs.4,30,000/- was purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff on 12.06.2006 on cash payment of Rs.40,000/- on the date of purchase and Rs.3,90,000/- remained balance payment to be made. Further case of the plaintiff was that an agreement was entered into between the parties under which the defendant agreed to pay balance amount Rs.3,90,000/- within two months by arranging finance from the Bank. It was further pleaded that the defendant also agreed that in case, defendant fails to pay the balance amount within two months, he will be liable to pay interest @ 21% and will make full payment on or before 2nd of June, 2007. It was also pleaded that the defendant signed invoice issued on 12.06.06 and also executed an agreement on stamp paper on 12.06.06 as also an affidavit in support of the agreement. The defendant, however, did not pay the balance amount of Rs.3,90,000/- which was payable to the plaintiff. Despite notices given to the defendant when the balance amount was not paid, the plaintiff had to file a suit. 3. The defence taken by the defendant was that the defendant had paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.4,33,000/- and no amount remained balance to be paid to the plaintiff. Defendant's case was that the agreement between the parties was that the defendant would pay the entire amount of sale consideration and when, later on, defendant would be getting loan financed from the Bank, the amount shall be returned to the defendant. Defendant's case was that the agreement between the parties was that the defendant would pay the entire amount of sale consideration and when, later on, defendant would be getting loan financed from the Bank, the amount shall be returned to the defendant. It was further pleaded that the defendant denied having executed any agreement and stated that his signatures were, at the time of sale and purchase of the vehicle, obtained on various blank papers including a blank stamp paper which have now been used by the plaintiff, though, there did not exist any such agreement. 4. Learned Trial Court framed as many as 8 issues which are reproduced as below: ØŒ okn Á'u fu"d"kZ 1- D;k oknh us Áfroknh dks ,pŒ,eŒVhŒ VªsDVlZ 2522 flfj;y uacj 3521 baftu uacj 31254 VªsŒthŒchŒ uacj 31192 rFkk Vªkyh psfpl uacj ,l vkbZ@0041@06&07 dks fnukad 12-06-2006 dks vU; lkekuksa lfgr 4]30]000@& esa cspdj 'kiFk i= ,oa bdjkjukek dh fy[kk i<+h dh\ oknh] Áfroknh ds ikl :i;s 4]30]000@& esa VsªDVj&Vªkyh cspk Fkk] fdUrq Áfroknh }kjk oknh ds i{k esa dksbZ bdjkjukek ;k 'kiFk i= ugha fy[kk x;k FkkA 2- D;k mDr VsªDVj&Vªkyh ds ewY; 4]30]000 esa ls fnukad 12-06-2006 dks 40]000@& :i;s oknh dks ÁkIr gqvk gS\ Áfroknh fnukad 12-06-2006 dks oknh dks :i;s 40]000@& fn;k Fkk rFkk 'ks"k jde og mDr frfFk ds ckn ns pqdk gS vkSj dksbZ jde cdk;k ugha gSA 3- D;k oknh mDr VsªDVj&Vªkyh dk 'ks"k jde 3]90]000@& m/kkjh esa fn;k Fkk\ ugha 4- D;k Áfroknh m/kkjh jde dks nks ekg ds Hkhrj cSad QkbZusal djkdj nsus dk oknk fd;k Fkk rFkk nks ekg esa cSad QkbZusal ugha gksus ij m/kkjh jde ij 21 Áfr'kr C;kt lfgr okil djus dk oknk fd;k Fkk\ ugha 5- D;k oknh us >wBs ,oa QthZ nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij Áfroknh ds fo:) ;g nkok vkus okys eqvkotk Ádj.k ls cpus ds fy, yk;k gS\ oknh }kjk ;g nkok eqvkotk Ádj.k ls cspus ds fy, is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA 6- D;k fnukad 12-06- 2006 ls 18 -10-2006 rd okgu dk ekfyd oknh Fkk\ ugha 7- D;k oknh us Áfroknh ds yM+ds dks ugjikyh ds ikl VsªDVj dks dk;Z djus ds fy, fn;k Fkk\ ugha 8- lgk;rk ,oa O;;\ oknh dk okn lO;; [kkfjt fd;k x;kA 5. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined Mohan Kumar, partner of the firm and in order to prove execution of the agreement between the parties, examined Maheshram and Bhupedra Singh Rathore as plaintiff's witnesses. The defendant examined, himself, as also one Dushyant Kumar, as his witness to support his case. 6. By the impugned judgment and decree, learned Trial Court recorded finding that the plaintiff's case that he was paid only part consideration of Rs.40,000/- and balance amount was not paid to him, could not be accepted and on preponderance of probability, on the basis of proof of circumstances of the case, it is proved that the defendant had paid the full amount to the plaintiff and nothing remained to be paid. 7. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court committed error of law and fact both in holding that the defendant paid full sale consideration which is contrary to the agreement between the parties duly proved from the evidence of Mohan Kumar (PW1), Maheshram (PW2), Bhupendra Rathore (PW3). It is further argued that the defendant admitted his signatures on the agreement invoice and all other documents and he being literate person, his defence that he signed blank paper is liable to be disbelieved. It is next submitted that the defendant's plea that he paid the entire amount at the time of purchase of vehicle on 12.06.2006 is not proved from any clinching evidence of receipt of entire amount of sale consideration by the plaintiff or from any other evidence of plaintiff having received the said amount. Further, it is submitted that the defendant's defence that whole amount of sale consideration was paid at the time of purchase of vehicle on 12.06.06 is at complete variance and inconsistent with what has been deposed by him and his witness Dushyant Kumar before the Court wherein they have admitted that on 12.06.06, only Rs.40,000/- was paid. The defendant, though, claims to have paid balance amount in installment, he is unable to state the date, on which, the balance amount was paid nor the installments in which, balance amount was paid. The burden to prove payment of full sale consideration was on the defendant which the defendant failed to discharge. The defendant, though, claims to have paid balance amount in installment, he is unable to state the date, on which, the balance amount was paid nor the installments in which, balance amount was paid. The burden to prove payment of full sale consideration was on the defendant which the defendant failed to discharge. It is argued that the learned Trial Court only on the basis that in the sale letter Ex.D/1 & Ex.D/2, in one of the column, no mention of it being higher purchase lease or hypothecation is mentioned, has jumped to the conclusion that in all probability, the entire sale consideration must have been paid by the defendant to the appellant whereas the transaction in the present case was neither higher purchase agreement nor hypothecated nor lease but case of outright sale under which part consideration was paid and part was promised to be paid later on. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the plaintiff was the dealer and he has admitted, in his cross examination, that he maintains the records relating to sale and purchase of vehicle as also the balance amount to be recovered from purchaser but those books of accounts were not produced before the Court. In the sale letter Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/2, there was no mention made that the vehicle was sold only on part consideration payment and that it is improbable that the dealer would deliver the possession of the vehicle and sell the same without receiving full consideration, therefore, the trial Court has rightly reached to the conclusion that the whole amount was actually paid by the defendant and nothing remained to be paid. 9. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. The plaintiff has come out with the case that on 12.06.06, he sold a tractor and a trolley to the defendant for consideration of Rs.4,30,000/-. On this aspect, there is no dispute that there was a sale transaction between the parties. It is nobody's case that the vehicle was taken under a higher purchase agreement or that it was leased out or hypothecated. The plaintiff's case that the defendant purchased the vehicle has been admitted by the defendant. 11. There is also no dispute that the vehicle was sold for consideration of Rs.4,30,000/-. On this aspect, the plaintiff and defendant have not joined anyissue. The plaintiff's case that the defendant purchased the vehicle has been admitted by the defendant. 11. There is also no dispute that the vehicle was sold for consideration of Rs.4,30,000/-. On this aspect, the plaintiff and defendant have not joined anyissue. 12. The entire dispute between the parties is with regard to the payment of the sale consideration of Rs.4,30,000/-. While according to the plaintiff, he received only Rs.40,000/- and balance of Rs.3,90,000/- was to be paid later on, the case of the defendant has been that he paid the entire amount at the time of sale itself i.e. 12.06.06. 13. In para 3 & 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that out of total consideration of Rs.4,30,000/-, defendant paid Rs.40,000/- cash on 12.06.2006 and Rs.3,90,000/- remained to be paid for which defendant assured the plaintiff that he would get this amount paid after getting finance facility from the Bank and also agreed that if he fails to pay balance amount within two months, he would pay interest @ 21% till 2nd of June, 2007. In para 5 of the plaint, it has also been categorically averred that defendant signed the invoice upon purchase of the tractor on 12.06.2006. It has also been pleaded that on stamp paper of Rs.100/-, the defendant executed an agreement on 12.06.2006 itself and he also executed an affidavit. 14. The plaintiff-Mohan Kumar, who has examined himself as PW-1, has deposed in para 3, 4, 5 & 6 of his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC regarding receipt of Rs.40,000/-, balance of Rs.3,90,000/- having remained unpaid, issuance of invoice on 12.06.2006, containing signature of the plaintiff and defendant, agreement for paying balance amount after getting finance, payment of interest @ 21% in default of such payment and execution of agreement dated 12.06.2006 singed by the parties. Invoice Ex.P/1 has been proved by the plaintiff which records that on 12.06.2006, Rs.40,000/- was paid and balance of Rs.3,90,000/- remained unpaid. In cross examination, he states that the bill book has not been brought and further deposes that the original receipt of Ex.P/1, the invoice is given to the consumer. He has further deposed that at the time of preparation of bill Ex.P/1 he, himself, Mahadev/defendant and his son was present. In cross examination, he states that the bill book has not been brought and further deposes that the original receipt of Ex.P/1, the invoice is given to the consumer. He has further deposed that at the time of preparation of bill Ex.P/1 he, himself, Mahadev/defendant and his son was present. He has denied that the signature of the purchaser were taken in carbon copy but reiterates that the original copy goes with the purchaser and his signature were obtained in the copy retained by the dealer. He has denied suggestion that he prepared signature of defendant Mahadev, later on. 15. Maheshram (PW2) deposes that on 12.06.2006 Mahadev had purchased a tractor and paid Rs.40,000/- to the seller and balance of Rs.3,90,000/- was not paid. Similar is the evidence of another plaintiff witness No.3 Bhupendra Rathore. 16. Defendant Mahadev Sahu has examined, himself, as first defendant witness and admits having purchased tractor and trolley on 12.06.2006 and admits his signature on invoice Ex.P/1 but he further deposes that at the time when he signed the document, nothing was written in the document. That means that the defendant admits his signature on invoice Ex.P/1. 17. The two agreements Ex.P/2 & Ex.P/3 have been proved by the plaintiff from the evidence of Mohan Kumar (PW1), Maheshram (PW2) & Bhupendra Rathore (PW3). While plaintiff Mohan Kumar (PW1) deposes that an agreement was executed on 12.06.2006 that a tractor and a trolley for consideration of Rs.4,30,000/- was purchased by Mahadev, the defendant with the recital that he has paid Rs.40,000/- on 12.06.2006 and agrees to pay balance amount Rs.3,90,000/- within two months failing which it would be payable with the interest @ 21% before 02.06.2007. 18. The plaintiff's witnesses Maheshram (PW2) and Bhupendra Rathore (PW3), who are the witness to this agreement have deposed that in their presence, the agreement was executed. They have proved their signature on the said agreement. Both of them have deposed that on 12.06.2006 only Rs.40,000/- was paid and balance of Rs.3,90,000/- remained unpaid. 19. 18. The plaintiff's witnesses Maheshram (PW2) and Bhupendra Rathore (PW3), who are the witness to this agreement have deposed that in their presence, the agreement was executed. They have proved their signature on the said agreement. Both of them have deposed that on 12.06.2006 only Rs.40,000/- was paid and balance of Rs.3,90,000/- remained unpaid. 19. The other document, the affidavit of the defendant in original Ex.P/4 has also been proved by the plaintiff by deposing that the defendant had executed an affidavit on 12.06.2006 regarding he having purchased the tractor and trolley for a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- out of which, he has paid Rs.40,000/- on 12.06.2006 and that balance of Rs.3,90,000/- would be paid within two months and upon his failure, would be liable to pay balance amount before 2nd of June, 2007 with the interest at the rate of 21%. Maheshram (PW2), who is the witness to this affidavit, has proved his signature in the said affidavit. 20. The defendant, Mahadev, has also admitted his signature in the agreement Ex.P/2 and affidavit Ex.P/4 but then he says that his signature were obtained on blank stamp paper stating that he will get loan financed for him and then return the entire amount received by him. 21. While in the written statement, the defence of the defendant has been that he had paid the entire amount of Rs.4,30,000/- on 12.06.2006, itself, at the time of purchase of tractor and trolley, his evidence is at variance with this stand. In para 6 of his cross examination, he admits that on 12.06.2006 when he purchased the vehicle, he has paid Rs.40,000/-. He further deposes that the entire amount of Rs.3,40,000/- remaining balance has also been paid to the plaintiff in 2-3 installments. He then again states that he had paid four installments but then he is unable to state on what dates and how much amount in installment was paid by him. He admits that he has not filed any receipt of acknowledgment in respect of balance amount. This witness admits that he can read and write. 22. He then again states that he had paid four installments but then he is unable to state on what dates and how much amount in installment was paid by him. He admits that he has not filed any receipt of acknowledgment in respect of balance amount. This witness admits that he can read and write. 22. It would, thus, be seen that while the case of the plaintiff is based on oral as well as on documentary evidence supported by the witnesses of execution of agreement and affidavit that at the time of sale, the defendant had paid only Rs.40,000/- and remaining Rs.3,90,000/- remained unpaid, defendant's case is based only on oral evidence of having paid the entire amount as stated in the plaint which is at complete variance with the evidence of having paid balance amount in installment. For this reason, the evidence of defendant witness No.2 Dushyant Kumar Sahu is also relevant. He also states that on 12.06.2006 only Rs.40,000/- was paid and remaining amount of Rs.3,90,000/- was paid in the presence of Ganesh though he says that it was not paid in his presence. Therefore, the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that he received only Rs.40,000/- on 12.06.2006 and for the remaining amount of Rs.3,90,000/- defendant entered into an agreement and also executed an affidavit to the effect that he will pay balance amount of Rs.3,90,000/- within two months after getting finance and if he fails, he would pay the entire amount with the interest at the rate of 21% by on or before 02.06.2007. 23. We find that the learned Trial Court has recorded a finding that defendant has succeeded in proving that he has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.4,30,000/- on 12.06.06, itself, though the defendant has failed to produce any evidence in the form of acknowledgment of receipt of entire amount of Rs.4,30,000/-. Moreover, the learned trial Court also ignored to notice that the defendant's stand as taken in his written statement and what his witness has deposed in evidence was inconsistent and mutually distructive. As has been observed herein above, in the written statement, the case of the defendant was that he had paid the entire amount of Rs.4,30,000/- on 12.06.06 only, in his evidence he states that he paid Rs.40,000/- on 12.06.06 and the balance amount was paid by him in installment. As has been observed herein above, in the written statement, the case of the defendant was that he had paid the entire amount of Rs.4,30,000/- on 12.06.06 only, in his evidence he states that he paid Rs.40,000/- on 12.06.06 and the balance amount was paid by him in installment. Even no details of amount paid in installment has been given much less any acknowledgment of receipt given by the plaintiff in writing. It is improbable that a person would pay the amount without getting an acknowledgment of receipt. 24. Interestingly enough, learned trial Court has relied upon certain circumstances to record a finding against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant, one of those circumstances that in the sale certificate Ex.D/1 & D/2, in the column requiring information whether a tractor and trolley has been transferred under higher purchase agreement, lease or hypothecation, no declaration has been given and the said column has remained blank. On this, learned trial Court drawn an inference that it was not a transaction wherein the possession of the vehicle was transferred only on part payment and subject to the condition of payment of balance amount on a later date. The finding of the learned Trial Court is completely misdirected. The case of the plaintiff and defendant has been of an outright sale and it is nobody's case that it was a case of higher purchase or lease or hypothecation. Therefore, merely because the said column did not contain any specific details, no inference could be drawn that the entire sale consideration was paid. It is a case of outright sale though only part consideration was paid and remaining amount promised to be paid later on. 25. Learned Trial Court has also drawn adverse inference against the plaintiff on the ground that though plaintiff has admitted, in his cross examination, that such transactions of sale of vehicle accompanied with delivery and a part of consideration remaining balance for payment are entered in their course of business but the same has not been produced. 26. In the case of there being any doubt with regard to the fact whether the plaintiff had received the entire consideration, perhaps the Court would have insisted for production of those records. 26. In the case of there being any doubt with regard to the fact whether the plaintiff had received the entire consideration, perhaps the Court would have insisted for production of those records. The burden was, however, on the defendant to prove that the entire amount was paid by him and even if the plaintiff would have failed to produce those documents despite notices for production of those documents given by defendant, in appropriate cases, a finding could be recorded against the plaintiff. However, in the present case, we have already held that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving by clinching and reliable evidence that he only received Rs.40,000/-. The defendant having acknowledged his liability to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,90,000/- proved from reliable documentary evidence of agreement and affidavit executed by none other than the defendant and the defendant's defence having been found to be false and afterthought, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 27. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and decree is set aside. The plaintiff's suit is decreed. The defendant is liable to pay Rs.3,90,000/- to the plaintiff. From 12.06.2006 to 02.06.2007, the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 21% on the balance amount of Rs.3,90,000/-. The plaintiff would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 4% per annum on the total amount of Rs.3,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 21% as directed earlier, from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of its realization. The defendant shall pay the decreetal amount to the plaintiff within a period of 4 months. If the said amount is not paid by the defendant within a period of four months, the plaintiff would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from the date of expiry of 4 months till the date of realization in execution proceeding. Appellate decree be drawn accordingly.