JUDGMENT : (Prayer (in S.A.(MD) No.23 of 2015): Second appeal is filed, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 16.12.2013 made in A.S.No.20 of 2011, on the file of the I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2010, made in O.S.No.753 of 2008, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town. Prayer (in S.A.(MD) No.24 of 2015): Second appeal is filed, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 16.12.2013 made in A.S.No.21 of 2011, on the file of the I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2010, made in O.S.No.801 of 2008, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town. Prayer (in S.A.(MD) No.25 of 2015): Second appeal is filed, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 16.12.2013 made in A.S.No.22 of 2011, on the file of the I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2010, made in O.S.No.883 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town. Prayer (in S.A.(MD) No.26 of 2015): Second appeal is filed, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 16.12.2013 made in A.S.No.102 of 2011, on the file of the I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2010, made in O.S.No.937 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town.) All the above second appeals are directed against the Judgments and Decrees, dated 16.12.2013 passed in A.S.Nos.20, 21, 22 & 102 of 2011, on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, confirming the Judgments and Decrees dated 25.11.2010, passed in O.S.No.753, 801 of 2008, 883 & 937 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town, respectively. 2. Inasmuch as common issues are involved in all the abovesaid four second appeals, it is seen that the following common substantial questions of law were formulated at the time of admission of the second appeals: “i. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? ii. Whether Ex.A3 letter would be considered to be an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, when the same was issued after the expiration of the period of limitation? ii. Whether Ex.A3 letter would be considered to be an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, when the same was issued after the expiration of the period of limitation? iii. When Ex.A3 letter admits liability for only a limited amount, whether the courts below were correct in holding that, there is an acknowledgment of the entire suit claim? iv. Whether the courts below were right in shifting the burden of proof upon the defendants contrary to Section 101 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act?” 3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail. 4. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail. 4. The respondents in the second appeals preferred the suits against the appellant – Company for the recovery of money and in common, according to the respondents, in their respective suits, each of them had invested a sum of Rs.900/- in the Teak Plantation Scheme offered by the appellant – Company and accordingly, the appellant – Company had issued necessary sale certificates in their favour on the assurance that the teak saplings would grow for 20 years and accordingly, the contract entered into between the respondents and the appellant – Company envisages that the appellant should pay Rs.1,800/-, Rs.3,600/- and Rs.6,500/-, totally amounting to Rs.11,900/- on the expiry of the 5th year, 10th year and 15th year and the appellant had also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.56,000/- towards the appreciation value of the teak trees on the expiry of the 20th year, thus, as per the contract entered into between the parties, the appellant is liable to pay the abovesaid sum to the respondents, however, the appellant did not pay the amount payable on the expiry of the periods as abovestated, while so, a letter had been received by the respondents from the appellant – Company as if they are unable to continue with the Scheme owing to the monsoon failure and natural calamities and the respondents sent letters to the appellant claiming the amounts due to them as per the contract entered into between them and the appellant and accordingly, it is stated that considering the amount liable to be paid by the appellant amounting to Rs.11,900/- for the periods agreed to be paid and also the appreciation value of the teak trees on the expiry of the 15th year as determined by the contract, accordingly, seeking the recovery of the amounts due to them, the respondents had levied the suits against the appellant – Company. 5. 5. The appellant – Company preferred the written statement admitting the Teak Plantation Scheme started by them as well as the contract entered into between it and the respondents in respect of the same and also admitted that as per the contract, they are liable to pay the sum of Rs.11,900/-, in all, on the expiry of the periods as stipulated in the contract, however, it is the case of the appellant that they could not continue the Teak Plantation Scheme successfully owing to the monsoon failure and natural calamities and ultimately, it is stated that they had been forced to close the Scheme in the year 1998 itself and accordingly, as per the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the parties, in case of unforeseen circumstances, the appellant is liable to return the invested amount together with 12% interest and accordingly, following the closure of the Scheme, the appellant sent the letter, dated 16.03.1998 to all the investors. Though the respondents had received the said letter, they did not opt for any of the suggestions putforth by the appellant and instead, they sent letters claiming the amount mentioned therein, as if, the same is due to them in the light of the contract entered into between the parties and again the appellant intimated the closure of the Scheme and requested the respondents to avail the options suggested by it and even thereafter, the respondents, instead of availing the options putforth by the appellant, had chosen to institute the suits against the appellant and hence, according to the appellant, the suits laid by the respondents are liable to be dismissed. 6. Based on the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary and the submissions made, the Courts below were pleased to accept the case of the respondents in toto and reject the defence version putforth by the appellant and thereby, decreed the suits in favour of the appellants as prayed for. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeals have been laid by the appellant. 7. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeals have been laid by the appellant. 7. There is no dispute between the parties as regards the contract entered into between them for selling, fostering and nurturing the teak tree saplings to be developed by the appellant and in this connection, it is seen that the respondents in terms of the contract, with reference to the abovesaid Scheme, paid a sum of Rs.900/- each to the appellant and pursuant to the same, it is found that the teak sapling sale certificates had been issued in favour of the respondents by the appellant, which had been exhibited in the suits. Furthermore, the appellant, in the written statement, had clearly admitted that the growing period of the teak trees is 20 years and also admitted the case of the respondents that the appellant had assured to pay back the amount at the rate of Rs.1,800/-, Rs.3,600/- and Rs.6,500/-, in all amounting to Rs.11,900/-, after the 5th, 10th and 15th year of the Scheme and thus, it is noted that as per the contract entered into between the parties, regarding the Teak Plantation Scheme, the appellant is liable to honour the contract and accordingly, as per the terms and conditions of the contract, either to pay the appreciation value of the teak trees or the respondents, if they so desire, to permit them to take the delivery of the trees at their own costs as stipulated in the contract. 8. 8. The only defence projected by the appellant to disown the liability to pay the suit amounts to the respondents is that due to the unforeseen circumstances, they had been unable to continue the Scheme and accordingly, it is stated that they had been forced to close the Scheme during 1998 and further, it is also putforth that they had intimated the closure of the Scheme to all the investors, including the respondents, and even though the other investors had agreed to get back the invested amount with 12% interest, as stipulated in the contract, the respondents, without adhering to the abovesaid terms, had come forward with the suits claiming the amounts due to them as per the contract, however, as per the terms of the contract, the appellant is not liable to pay the suit amount to the respondents and on the other hand, as the appellant had been forced to close the Scheme due to the unforeseen circumstances, they are liable to return only the invested amount with interest at the rate of 12% and therefore, it is contended that the respondents are not entitled to recover the amounts as claimed in the suit. 9. In respect of the abovesaid defence version putforth by the appellant, it appears that it relies upon Clause-12 of the terms and conditions stipulated on the reverse side of the application form submitted by the respondents at the time of entering into the Scheme. Clause-12 of the terms and conditions found on the reverse side of the application form reads as follows: “12. In case of unforeseen circumstances within or after 5 years from the start of the scheme, Prashanthi Plantations Pvt. Ltd. guarantees return of investment with 12% interest.” 10. As rightly found by the First Appellate Court, the terms and conditions agreed to between the parties, which had been incorporated on the reverse side of the sale certificates issued to the respondents, are found to be not similar to the terms and conditions printed on the reverse side of the application forms. Clause-15 of the terms and conditions found on the reverse side of the sale certificates issued to respondents reads as follows: “15. The Company shall not be liable to pay any damages or compensation to the Certificate-Holder for any breach due to any unforeseen circumstances.” 11. Clause-15 of the terms and conditions found on the reverse side of the sale certificates issued to respondents reads as follows: “15. The Company shall not be liable to pay any damages or compensation to the Certificate-Holder for any breach due to any unforeseen circumstances.” 11. Therefore, it is noted that though Clause - 12 of the terms and conditions found in the application form stipulates that the appellant is liable to return the invested amount with 12% interest on the closure of the Scheme, in case of unforeseen circumstances, within or after five years from the start of the Scheme, as per Clause - 15 of the terms and conditions given in the sale certificates, it is seen that the appellant is stated to be not liable to pay any damages or compensation to the Certificate-Holders for any breach due to any unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, the abovesaid two clauses, do not stipulate the same conditions in the event of the failure on the part of the appellant to continue the Scheme due to any unforeseen circumstances. One clause reads as if the appellant is liable to return the invested amount with 12% interest and the other clause reads as if the appellant is not liable to pay damages or compensation to the Certificate-Holders. With reference to the same, there is no proper explanation on the part of the appellant. 12. Be that as it may, as rightly found by the Courts below, when the appellant has putforth the defence version disowning the contract on the footing that it was unable to continue the Scheme due to the continuous monsoon failure and natural calamities, as rightly found by the Courts below, the burden of proof to establish the same squarely rests only upon the appellant. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention that while cross-examining the witness examined as D.W.1, on behalf of the appellant, the suggestion has been put to her that the teak planting had been shifted to other place not stipulated in the contract without intimating to the respondents and furthermore, the suggestion has also been put to her that the appellant had created the documents falsely for the purpose of the case and accordingly, had putforth inconsistent statement to the pleas putforth in the written statement. Therefore, when the respondents, in particular, have disputed the genuineness of the documents putforth by the appellant for sustaining its case, as rightly determined by the Courts below, the appellant should have endeavoured and taken all the care to establish its defence version by placing acceptable and reliable evidence, particularly, by way of establishing the genuineness of the documents projected by it, in support of its defence version. 13. As above noted, it is pleaded by the appellant, in the written statement, that due to the unforeseen circumstances, that is, on account of the continuous monsoon failure and natural calamities, they had been forced to close the Scheme in the year 1998 itself and accordingly, putforth the case that it is liable only to repay the invested amount with 12% interest as per the contract entered into between the parties. When the abovesaid case of the appellant is stoutly resisted by respondents, as determined by the Courts below, the appellant, in particular, should establish that it had been forced to close the Scheme on account of the continuous monsoon failure and natural calamities as putforth by them. As found by the Courts below, with reference to the claim of the appellant that on account of the continuous monsoon failure and natural calamities, they had been forced to close the Scheme, in respect of the same, no details had been set out in the written statement by the appellant as to during which period there had been monsoon failure and upto which period the same had continued and what are the natural calamities faced by them, which had forced them to close the Scheme and as rightly determined by the Courts below, other than the vague plea of continuous monsoon failure and natural calamities, no other reason has been projected in the written statement, with reference to the same. To substantiate the abovesaid cause of the appellant, the only document that had been placed for consideration is the website copy of the Environment Profile for Tirunelveli District, which had been exhibited in the suits. D.W.1 has admitted that the abovesaid copy has been extracted from the website and accordingly, as rightly determined by the Courts below, when D.W.1 is not the author of the said document, she would not be competent to depose about the contents thereof. D.W.1 has admitted that the abovesaid copy has been extracted from the website and accordingly, as rightly determined by the Courts below, when D.W.1 is not the author of the said document, she would not be competent to depose about the contents thereof. In particular, the Trial Court relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in LIC of India vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491 and Bishwanath Rai vs. Sachhidanand Singh, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1949 , has rightly determined that marking of the document by itself would not amount to the admission of the truth of the contents contained therein and the contents of the documents cannot be held to be established merely by filing the document in the Court and in such view of the matter, when D.W.1 has not claimed that she is aware of the contents of the document and also not explained anything about the contents found in Ex.B4, other than marking the same, as rightly determined by the Courts below, to establish the truth and veracity of the contents thereof, the appellant should have endeavoured to summon the concerned Officials of the Department, which had uploaded the abovesaid copy in the website for establishing the same and on the other hand, when the appellant had not endeavoured to sustain its case with reference to the same, the Courts below had rightly not placed reliance upon the said document for upholding the defence version putforth by the appellant. In addition to that, on a perusal of the contents of the said document, namely, Environment Profile for Tirunelveli District, the appellant, with reference to the same, seems to rely upon Paragraph No.vii, which is extracted hereunder: “vii. Incidence of Drought, Flood and Cyclone : There are 9 taluks and 19 blocks in the district. It has been ascertained from the available information that 9 taluks and 15 blocks were affected by drought during the years 1991-96, except the year 1992-93 when severe flood caused extensive loss of property. Few blocks were affected by cyclone during the years 1991-93 and 1995-96 in the district. The details on drought, flood and cyclone are given in Table No.29.” ‘14. Few blocks were affected by cyclone during the years 1991-93 and 1995-96 in the district. The details on drought, flood and cyclone are given in Table No.29.” ‘14. On a reading of the same, there is nothing clearly available to denote that the the lands, on which the Teak Plantation Scheme was implemented, had been affected by the natural calamities as mentioned therein and when the same denotes vaguely that certain Taluks had been affected by way of the same, per se we cannot conclude that the appellant had been unable to commence the Scheme in the lands in which, it had planned to nurture the Scheme and furthermore, the details mentioned therein said to have been incorporated in Table No.29 is also not produced by the appellant. Furthermore, on the glance of the said document, it is seen that it is not a complete document. It contains only Page Nos.1 and 15. As to what had happened to the other pages extracted from the website and why the appellant had not endeavoured to produce the same along with Page Nos.1 and 15 and why the appellant had not produced the concerned Table mentioned in the document and thus, when it is noted that the said document is not a complete document by itself, but projected in a piecemeal to suit the case of the appellant somehow or other and furthermore, when the contents relied upon by the appellant therein do not point out that the lands, in which the appellant commenced the Scheme, had been affected by floods, droughts or cyclones etc., and establish that the abovesaid disasters, pointed out in the said document, had also forced the appellant to close the Scheme and when with reference to the same, the appellant had not chosen to examine the author or the concerned official of the relevant Department, which had uploaded the document in the website, as determined by the Courts below, when the respondents had not been given the opportunity to cross-examine the author or the official of the concerned Department to test the veracity of the contents of the said document, namely, Environment Profile for Tirunelveli District, as rightly determined by the Courts below, no reliance at all could be placed upon the said document for upholding that the appellant had been forced to close the Scheme due to continuous monsoon failure and natural calamities as projected. Resultantly, it is seen that the appellant cannot be allowed to disown its liability to pay the sum due to the respondents as per the terms and conditions of the contract by unilaterally closing the Teak Plantation Scheme and on that ground, contend that the respondents are not entitled to obtain the reliefs as prayed for. 15. Furthermore, as could be seen from the case projected by the appellant, in offering three options to the respondents to receive the invested amount with interest by letter, dated 16.03.1998, the same also belies the case of the appellant that they had been unable to continue the Scheme due to continuous monsoon failure and natural calamities. In this connection, by letter, dated 16.03.1998, the appellant had written to the respondents as well as the other investors that due to natural calamities and furthermore as the maintenance costs for the teak tree has highly increased to more than the expectation, under these circumstances putforth that instead of enhancing the interim benefit, put alternative suggestions for the kind consideration of the investors and accordingly, stated that they would pay 12% interest for the investment amount of Rs.900/- for the five years i.e., Rs.540 and the teak tree would be given to them after the stipulated period of 20 years or provide additional one teak tree absolutely, instead of the interim benefit, which they would get after the stipulated period of 20 years or they would repurchase the invested amount i.e., Rs.900/- within a period of one year besides the payment of interest for five years i.e., Rs.540/-, which they would be sending after getting their consent. By way of the abovesaid three suggestions putforth by the appellant, the appellant had putforth the option that in addition to the payment of interest of the invested amount for five years, the teak tree would also be given to the investors, after the period of 20 yeas and the second option is that one additional teak tree would be provided absolutely instead of the interim benefit, which the investor would get after the stipulated period of 20 years. If really as putforth by the appellant, they had been unable to continue with the Scheme due to the monsoon failure and natural calamities, it does not stand to the reason as to how the appellant would provide teak trees to the investors after the stipulated period of 20 years and also the additional one teak tree absolutely instead of the interim benefit, after the completion of 20 years. When according to the appellant, the Teak Plantation Scheme had not been taken off due to the continuous monsoon failure and natural calamities and also due to the unexpected increase in the maintenance costs, to say that they would still provide teak tree and one additional teak tree at the completion of 20 years as suggested in the letter, dated 16.03.1998 would only go to expose the falsity of the appellant's case that the Teak Plantation Scheme commenced by them could not be continued for the reasons aforestated. Therefore, as rightly determined by the Courts below, the letter dated 16.03.1998, sent by the appellant to the investors, including the respondents, would only lead to the conclusion that the defence version projected by the appellant for the non-continuance of the Scheme is false and unacceptable and the same had been raised only with a view to avoid the payment of the amount due to the respondents, as per the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the parties. 16. As far as the money matters agreed to between the parties at the time of entering into the contract, the same could be gathered from the document marked as Ex.A2, the plan putforth by the appellant qua the Scheme and the same reads as follows: “Money Matters One time investment per Teak Tree Rs. 850/- One time maintenance Rs. 50/- Current prevailing market rate per cu.ft. (lease amount) Rs. 500/- Proposed price increase after 20 years 3.2 times period of scheme 20 years Yield from Teak Tree over a period of 20 years 35 cu.ft. Appreciation value after 20 years (Rs.500/- x 3.2 x 35 cu.ft) Rs.56,000/- Payback amount after 5th, 10th and 15th year (1,800/-+3,600/-+6,500/-) Rs.11,900/- Total amount from the Teak Tree over a period of 20 years Rs.67,900/- Payback amount in No. of Times (67,900 + 850) 79.9 times.” 17. Appreciation value after 20 years (Rs.500/- x 3.2 x 35 cu.ft) Rs.56,000/- Payback amount after 5th, 10th and 15th year (1,800/-+3,600/-+6,500/-) Rs.11,900/- Total amount from the Teak Tree over a period of 20 years Rs.67,900/- Payback amount in No. of Times (67,900 + 850) 79.9 times.” 17. On a reading of the same, when the appellant has also admitted that the respondents are entitled to get back the payback amount after 5th, 10th and 15th year at the rate of Rs.1,800/- + Rs.3,600/- + Rs.6,500/-, in all amounting to Rs.11,900/- as above noted and when the contract entered into between the parties, does not envisage that the respondents or the investors concerned should receive the above payback amount at the end of the above said respective periods and thereby, when it is seen that the respondents or the investors would be entitled to get back the above said payback amount cumulatively at the completion of 15th year of the total sum of Rs.11,900/-, the argument put forth by the appellant that the respondents having failed to lay the suits within the three years period of time from the expiry of the period of 5th year, 10th year and 15th year and on the other hand, having laid the suits, with reference to the same only, in the years 2008 and 2009, the same are hit by the law of limitation, as such, cannot be countenanced. On the other hand, when as per the terms and conditions of the contract, the respondents would be entitled to get the payback amount even at the end of the expiry of the 15th year of the total sum of Rs.11,900/, the above argument put forth by the appellant by contending that the suits laid by the respondents are barred by limitation, as such, cannot be countenanced. 18. That apart, the argument has also been putforth by the appellant that as per the Scheme floated and the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the parties, the term of 20 years expiry only on 30.10.2012 for enabling the respondents to take the delivery of the trees or the appreciation value of the same as stipulated in the contract and therefore, the suits laid by the respondents in the years 2008 and 2009 should be dismissed as pre-mature. However, the abovesaid contention does not merit acceptance considering the Clause-2 of the terms and conditions stipulated in the teak sapling sale certificate projected in the matter, which reads as follows: “2. The duration of the scheme is 20 years from the date of the receipt of the amount by the company. However the Certificate Holder is at liberty, if he so wishes, to take delivery of the tree at any time prior to the 20 year period on receipt of a written request from the Certificate Holder accompanied by this Sale Certificate duly discharged, the Company will deliver the tree to him in the stage of growth that the tree is on the date of such request but the Certificate Holder shall not be entitled to any refund of the amount or part of the amount paid by him under this Certificate.” 19. On a reading of the above said Clause, it is seen that though the duration of the Scheme is fixed for a period of 20 years, however, it is noted that the Certificate-Holder is at liberty, if he so wishes to take the delivery of the tree at any point of time prior to the above said period and accordingly, the appellant would be necessitated to deliver the tree to him in the stage of the growth that the tree is on the date of such request, but the only rider is that the Certificate-Holder would not be entitled to any refund of the amount or part of the amount paid by him under the certificate. Therefore, when the respondents or the investors would be entitled to take the delivery of the tree even prior to the expiry of the period of 20 years and the appellant is liable to deliver the tree to him in the stage of growth at that point of time, in such view of the matter, the suits laid by the respondents even before the completion of the period of 20 years cannot be dismissed as pre-mature, as sought to be made out by the appellant. 20. 20. The argument has also been put forth by the appellant that the respondents having been put on notice about the closure of the Scheme by the appellant by way of the letter, dated 16.03.1998 and therefore, the respondents having knowledge about the said position and they have also not chosen to exercise the options offered by the appellant, the suits laid by them in the years 2008 and 2009 are hit by the law of limitation, as such, cannot be countenanced, when the closure of the Scheme put forth by the appellant is found to be untenable and also not established and the letter dated 16.03.1998 belies the same, as above pointed out, the contention put forth by the appellant that on the above said ground, the suits laid by the respondents are barred by limitation cannot at all be accepted in any manner. 21. The argument has also been put forth by the appellant that the respondents cannot be allowed to invoke Section 18 of the Limitation Act based on the letter, dated 23.03.2007, as according to the appellant, by way of the above said letter, they had only offered their willingness to pay the amount of Rs.900/- collected towards the Teak Plantation Scheme and also under the said letter, they have admitted their liability only to repay the invested sum and not acknowledged their liability to pay the entire suit claim and therefore, contended that the abovesaid point has not been properly addressed by the Courts below. However, the respondents are not found to be relying upon the letter, dated 23.03.2007 solely for sustaining their case. The respondents, on the other hand, rely only upon the contract entered into between the parties qua the Teak Plantation Scheme and when as per the terms and conditions of the contract, the respondents are entitled to receive the payback amount as well as the appreciation value of the teak trees at the time, when they make request for the same and accordingly, when it is noted that the appellant is liable to repay the same and when the appellant has failed to establish its case of the closure of the Scheme due to the monsoon failure and natural calamities as above discussed, it is seen that the abovesaid contention putforth by the appellants does not hold water for rejecting the respondents' suits. 22. 22. The appellant has also putforth the argument that the Courts below had erred in shifting the burden upon the appellant for proving that the Teak Plantation Scheme had been closed as putforth by it, on the other hand, it is contended that only on the respondents establishing that the Teak Plantation Scheme had been continued beyond 1998 till 2012, the respondents would be entitled to seek the suit claim and therefore, according to him, the Judgments and Decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. However, when the appellant had admitted the contract entered into between the parties as regards the Teak Plantation Scheme and also its liability to pay the amount under the Scheme and the only defence that had been projected by the appellant to disown the liability is that it had been forced to close the Scheme due to the monsoon failure and natural calamities, when that aspect of the appellant had not been established in any manner as above discussed and on the other hand, when the above said case of the appellant also gets belied by the appellant's letter, dated 16.03.1998 and in such view of the matter, the Courts below are fully justified in holding that the above said defence version has to be established only by the appellant and on the appellant failing to establish the above said version projected by them, rightly held that as per the terms and conditions of the contract, the appellant is liable to pay the suit claim to the respondents as prayed for. 23. The argument has also been put forth that once the contract gets frustrated due to the unforeseen circumstances and thereby, the enforcement of the contract has been rendered impossible, the respondents are not entitled to get back the amount under the contract. However, when there is no material projected by the appellant to establish that the contract entered into between the parties has become frustrated or the enforcement of the same been made impossible due to the unforeseen circumstances, the contention putforth by the appellant that the respondents are not entitled to obtain the suit claim, as such, deserves rejection. 24. However, when there is no material projected by the appellant to establish that the contract entered into between the parties has become frustrated or the enforcement of the same been made impossible due to the unforeseen circumstances, the contention putforth by the appellant that the respondents are not entitled to obtain the suit claim, as such, deserves rejection. 24. In the light of the above discussions, it is seen that the Courts below had properly appreciated the materials placed on record by the respective parties, both oral and documentary and analyzed the same correctly, factually as well as legally and by giving proper reasons and conclusions, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to obtain the suit claim by rejecting the defence version put forth by the appellant. 25. In the light of the above position, in my considered opinion, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in the second appeals. Be that as it may, the substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeals are, accordingly, answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondents. 26. In conclusion, all these second appeals are found to be devoid of merits and they are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.