JUDGMENT : GOUTAM BHADURI, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Raipur, to the Court of First Additional District Judge in Civil Suit No. 55-A/2012 whereby the suit for specific performance brought by the plaintiff/appellant was dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff No. 1 Sunder Devi Vyas is the wife of Late Jai Shankar Vyas; plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 Devendra Kumar Vyas and Hitendra Kumar Vyas are the sons and plaintiffs No. 4 and 5 Smt. Bhagwati Devi Bohra and Smt. Vijay Laxmi Purohit are the sons and daughters of Late Jai Shankar Vyas. The suit property is situated at Lane No. 2, Rajeev Gandhi Ward, Fafadih, Raipur, bearing khasra No. 280 (Part), Plot No. 1/51 (Part), Sheet No. 20 admeasuring 2645 sq. ft. wherein on the ground floor construction over 1366 sq. ft. was made and in the first floor construction over 870 sq.ft. was made. As per the plaint averments, agreement of purchase of the said house was entered with Sudhir Kumar Singh for a sale consideration of Rs. 15.00 lacs and along with it movable property attached to it was valued to Rs. 7.00 lacs was also agreed to be sold and total sale consideration of Rs. 22.00 lacs was fixed. The agreement was executed on 29.11.2004 (Ex.D/1). The initial agreement was entered by Jai Shankar Vyas (husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5) and Rs. 10.00 lacs was paid on different dates. Subsequently, the sale agreement was notarized on 24.01.2005 (Ex.P/4). 3. According to the plaint averments before the sale deed could be executed Sudhir Kumar Singh (seller) died. The property was mortgaged with the Union Bank of India (defendant No. 3) and it had attached the property for recovery of the dues under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’). According to the plaintiff, it was agreed that the plaintiff would purchase the same and Rs. 10.00 lacs in lieu of repayment of loan was paid to the Bank by plaintiffs and further agreed that the remaining sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 12.00 lacs would be advanced by way of housing loan by the Bank to the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiff, it was agreed that the plaintiff would purchase the same and Rs. 10.00 lacs in lieu of repayment of loan was paid to the Bank by plaintiffs and further agreed that the remaining sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 12.00 lacs would be advanced by way of housing loan by the Bank to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff contended that he was ready and willing to execute his part of contract but the possession of the subject suit property was not given. Plaintiff further contend that after payment of Rs. 10.00 lacs the coercive sale at the instance of the Bank was stopped but the defendant failed to give possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. Further averments have been made that the plaintiff is ready and willing to get the sale deed executed by payment of remaining amount of Rs. 12.00 lacs as per the sale agreement. According to the plaintiff, the defendant failed to comply with the terms of agreement and hence notice was served upon them to get the sale deed executed but eventually the defendant failed to do so. Consequently, suit for specific performance was filed against the defendants. 4. The defendants No. 1 and 2 in their reply denied the plaint averments. It was stated that the plaintiff has not paid the earnest money at any point of time to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 or to late Sudhir Kumar Singh or Bank in lieu of loan and the agreement which was sought to be executed was fabricated and based there on subsequently the suit was filed. It was pleaded as a result the agreement is illegal and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants further contended that there was no concluded contract in respect of the suit property in between the plaintiff and the defendant. According to the defendants, after the death of Sudhir Kumar Singh his legal heirs were not substituted, therefore, the suit abated and the agreement cannot be ordered to be specifically performed. 5. The defendants further contended that there was no concluded contract in respect of the suit property in between the plaintiff and the defendant. According to the defendants, after the death of Sudhir Kumar Singh his legal heirs were not substituted, therefore, the suit abated and the agreement cannot be ordered to be specifically performed. 5. The defendant No. 3/Bank in its reply stated that loan was granted to the defendant on cash credit account and in order to secure loan to secure the repayment, mortgage was created in respect of the suit property and since the defendant failed to pay the loan as per terms of the agreement, the Bank took a measure under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and attached the property. At that time, the original plaintiff Jai Shankar Vyas approached the Bank along with borrower Late Sudhir Kumar Singh submitted the agreement dated 29.11.2004 and thereafter deposited an amount of Rs. 10,06,100/- by Late Jai Shankar Vyas in the Bank and rest of the amount pursuant to the agreement was sought to be sanctioned by way of housing loan by plaintiff. Eventually on 02.02.2005 (Ex.D/2), Jai Shankar Vyas wrote a letter to the Bank that he is not interested to purchase the house and took back the amount deposited in the Account No.........727. The Bank disowned the existence of agreement dated 24.01.2005 and resisted the suit. 6. On the basis of pleadings, the learned trial Court framed different issues and held that the plaintiff has proved that as against the sale agreement dated 29.11.2004 the plaintiff has failed to prove Rs. 10.00 lacs was received by the defendant and thereafter further agreement dated 24.01.2005 was executed. The Court framed the issue whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and it held in negative. With respect to return of Rs. 10.00 lacs since 29.11.2004, the Court also held it in negative. Eventually the suit was dismissed. Thus, this appeal. 7. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that: (i) the suit was filed by Jai Shankar Vyas who entered into an agreement. (ii) Sudhir Kumar Singh obtained loan from the Bank, which is supported by the Bank, and failed to repay the same and because of such failure the suit property, which was mortgaged with the Bank, the house was attached and coercive sale was contemplated. (ii) Sudhir Kumar Singh obtained loan from the Bank, which is supported by the Bank, and failed to repay the same and because of such failure the suit property, which was mortgaged with the Bank, the house was attached and coercive sale was contemplated. (iii) at that time, the plaintiff intervened and helped the defendant by making payment of Rs. 10.00 lacs and the coercive sale of house was stopped. (iv) after that the defendant took a somersault and refused to execute the sale deed. (v) referring to the written statement of the Bank and the additional pleading learned counsel would submit that the amount was deposited by Jai Shankar Vyas, the erstwhile purchaser, as against the loan and after some time the possession of the suit property was not given to the plaintiff, therefore, the sale could not be executed within time. (vi) referring to the interlocutory applications filed in this case learned counsel would submit that the fact cannot be ignored that when the defendant came out with a plea that they have no means to pay the loan, how the payment was made to release the property from the mortgage. (vii) after receipt of Rs. 10.00 lacs, the forceful sale was stopped by the defendant and different plea has been taken that the sale agreement does not bear the signature. (viii) referring to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Aloka Bose vs. Parmatma Devi and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 582 learned counsel would submit that even in case of sale agreement which bears the signature of vendor it would be sufficient to hold the agreement valid. (ix) referring to the statement of DW-1 Satyavati Devi, learned counsel would submit that the statement of defendant is an admission, which corroborate the written statement filed by the Bank, who is a third party which affirmed the fact that in between 29.11.2004 to 15.12.2004 more than Rs. 10 lacs was deposited. (x) by placing reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Silvey and Others vs. Arun Varghese and Another, (2008) 11 SCC 45 learned counsel would submit that when false plea was taken by the defendant that cannot be ignored while adjudicating the case of specific performance. (xi) the finding of the learned Court below is completely faulty and against the evidence available on record. 8. Mr. (xi) the finding of the learned Court below is completely faulty and against the evidence available on record. 8. Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, per contra, would submit that: (i) the plaintiff sought specific performance of a contract dated 24.01.2005 (Ex.P-4). (ii) the earlier agreement dated 29.11.2004 was the original agreement and the same cast a reciprocal duty on the plaintiff to liquidate the loan which is supported by the written statement of the Bank and it would show that on 01.12.2004 the plaintiff appeared in the Bank and filed an application along with the agreement dated 29.11.2004. (iii) on that date, the agreement, which is sought to be specifically enforced was placed before the Bank, therefore, the written statement of the Bank is corroborated by the statement of witness that the amount was deposited in the own account of Jai Shankar Vyas i.e. Account No.......727, which he voluntarily withdrawn. (iv) referring to Ex.D/2 learned counsel would submit that Jai Shankar himself stated that he was not interested to purchase the suit property any more and, as such, the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff cannot be interfered by his own conduct. (v) even the deposit of Rs. 10.00 lacs was not in lieu of loan, but was deposited in the personal account by purchaser. (vi) referring to copy of account statement filed along with Ex.D/2 learned counsel would submit that the transaction will show that the amount was deposited by Jai Shankar Vyas in his own account, which was withdrawn subsequently, therefore, the entire suit was on the falsity. (vii) If the plaint averments are tallied with the written statement filed by the Bank it would show that suppression of material facts exist there. (viii) placing reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Mohammadia Cooperative Building Society Limited vs. Lakshmi Srinivasa Cooperative Building Society Limited and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 310 and Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals vs. Ramaniyam Real Estates Private Limited and Another, (2011) 9 SCC 147 learned counsel would submit that the specific relief in the like nature cannot be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. He would, therefore, submit that the finding of the Court below is well merited, which do not call for any interference. 9. He would, therefore, submit that the finding of the Court below is well merited, which do not call for any interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the evidence available on record. 10. Perusal of the plaint would show that suit was filed by the legal heirs of Jai Shankar Vyas who is said to have entered into an agreement as a purchaser and the legal heirs sought for execution of agreement dated 24.1.2005. Learned trial Court has raised the doubt on existence of agreement dated 24.1.2005 (Ex.P/4). In the written statement, existence of the said agreement is challenged. Perusal of the agreement (Ex.P/4) would show in that agreement, two photographs of elderly persons were affixed which are marked as ‘F to F’ and ‘E to E’. Photograph at ‘G to G’ appears to be of some young person, which is affixed over the seal/stamp covering part of stamp seal. The defendant has stated that initially the agreement was executed on 29-11-2004, which is marked as Ex.D/1, wherein the names of (1) Sudhir Kumar Singh, (2) Smt. Satyawati Singh and (3) Satyadhir Singh Thakur appear as a seller. Comparing the said agreement Ex.D/1 with Ex.P/4 would show that it was the same agreement on which subsequent photograph from ‘G to G’ was affixed. Perusal of agreement (Ex.P/4), on which the plaintiff relies, shows that it begins with the word that the agreement is executed on 29-11-2004 whereas at the last para it shows that the agreement is said to be executed on 24-1-2005. Again when such scribe is compared with Ex.P/4 & Ex.D/1, prima-face, it is manifest that the same is one and same, however, in Ex.P/4 further signature of Satyadhir appears. Therefore, ambiguity of subsequent agreement Ex.P/4 is writ large inasmuch as the appearance of photograph covering seal and at last page by putting up a seal of date over written scribe makes it doubtful. 11. Further perusal of both agreements (Ex.P/4 and Ex.D/1) purport that the suit property was agreed to be purchased by the plaintiff for Rs. 15.00 lacs and in respect of movable attached with the property Rs. 7.00 lacs was valued. So total valuation of sale consideration was Rs. 22.00 lacs. Further the contents of document purport that Rs. 11. Further perusal of both agreements (Ex.P/4 and Ex.D/1) purport that the suit property was agreed to be purchased by the plaintiff for Rs. 15.00 lacs and in respect of movable attached with the property Rs. 7.00 lacs was valued. So total valuation of sale consideration was Rs. 22.00 lacs. Further the contents of document purport that Rs. 10.00 lacs was said to have been received by party No. 2, which has been given to party No. 1 in his bank loan account. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the property was subject of mortgage in lieu of loan availed by the defendant and agreement purports that Rs. 10.00 lacs is being deposited in the loan account and Rs. 12.00 lacs balance amount would be further paid. The agreement further purport that on payment of loan amount, the property would be released from the mortgage and on payment of rest of the amount of Rs. 12.00 lacs, the entire sale consideration would be deemed to have been paid. Even taking the document Ex.P/4 and the terms contained therein, it says that the moment purchaser (Party No. 2) deposits the loan amount in the Bank and NOC is received, the sale deed would be executed. Consequently it causes a reciprocal condition on the plaintiff to seek specific performance on fulfilling certain conditions. 12. In the written statement filed by the Bank, it has been stated that on 1-12-2004 the plaintiff and defendant came to bank and filed an application through Hitendra Vyas along with agreement dated 29-11-2004 the Bank and thereafter it was assured by the loanee Sudhir Kumar and the original plaintiff Jai Kumar Vyas and Hitendra Vyas that they would pay the entire loan amount of the Bank. Thereafter Jai Shankar Vyas has deposited an amount of Rs. 10,06,100/- in between 29-11-2004 to 15-12-2004 with bank. The averments of the Bank when are compared with Ex.P/4 for which the plaintiff has sought for specific performance, it contains a statement that an amount of Rs. 10.00 lacs received by the seller and Ex.P-4 is dated 24.01.2005. 13. According to the statement of PW-1 Hitendra Kumar Vyas in the cross-examination at Para 30 he stated that no amount was paid in lieu of the loan which was availed by Satyadevi from the Bank. 10.00 lacs received by the seller and Ex.P-4 is dated 24.01.2005. 13. According to the statement of PW-1 Hitendra Kumar Vyas in the cross-examination at Para 30 he stated that no amount was paid in lieu of the loan which was availed by Satyadevi from the Bank. He further stated that his father has not paid the loan in accordance with the agreement (Ex.P/4). At Para 35, this witness admits the fact apart from Sudhir Singh and Satyadhir Singh he was in know of the fact that another daughter is there but neither she was made a party to the agreement nor was party to the suit. Further cross-examination by the Bank, he admitted the fact that on 1-12-2004, he and his father have applied for loan to the Bank. He further admitted that to avail such loan they had given the document Ex.D/1 to the Bank. Ex.D/1 is an agreement dated 29-11-2004. He further admitted that thereafter his father submitted a letter (Ex.D/2) to the Bank. Perusal of Ex.D/2 dated 2-2-2005 shows it was stated by Jai Shankar Vyas that he is not interested to purchase the suit property and the amount was deposited in his own Account No......727 further requested for cancellation of the loan. The plaintiff tried to canvas that the loan was cancelled by them for the reason to arrest the accumulation of interest. However, when the loan itself was not availed until and unless the amount is transferred to loanee or is withdrawn how such accumulation of interest would commence, we are unable to understand. Therefore, the said contention of the appellant to explain the contents of Ex.D/2 appears to be an afterthought. It only goes to show that the plaintiffs themselves were not interested to get the sale deed executed in their favour and original purchaser had rescinded the contract. 14. Now coming back to the written statement of Bank, the Bank stated that amount was deposited by plaintiffs in the account in between 29-11-2004 to 15-12-2004. Further pleading has been made with respect to Ex.D/2 i.e. letter of 2-2-2005 that plaintiff stated before Bank by such letter that he do not want to purchase the suit property and sanctioned loan be cancelled; and the amount deposited in Account No......727, which was of the contractual amount, was withdrawn by Jai Shankar till 23-8-2005 with a remaining amount of Rs. 78,759/-. 78,759/-. Along with document Ex.D/2, a copy of account statement is on record, which is of Account No......727. This account sheet is not disputed by the parties. Perusal of it would show that in between 29-11-2004 to 15-12-2004 the amount around Rs. 10.00 lacs was deposited in the account of Jai Shankar. The said account was personal account of Jai Shankar and further would show that after 7-2-2005 the amount was withdrawn and lastly Rs. 78,759/- remained in the account. Perusal of the said document along with para 26 of cross-examination of PW-1 Hitendra Kumar Vyas it is evident that he admitted the existence of Ex.D/2 and stated that it was informed to the Bank. Further the statement would show that the witness has deposed that he has no knowledge whether his father Jai Shankar has deposited the amount to liquidate the loan account. 15. All the aforesaid facts have not been pleaded in the suit by the plaintiff. It was only at the time of cross-examination the facts came to fore. 16. It is the trite law that supression of material facts would disentitle a party from getting relief of specific performance. [See: Mohammadia Cooperative Building Society Limited (supra) and Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals (supra)] 17. In the case in hand, the plaintiffs’ suit for specific performance of Ex.P/4 apparently appears to be doubtful, as the inconsistency and overwriting appears by way of stamp/seal as against document Ex.D/1. Even if the agreement alleged to be correct, prima facie, it shows that the plaintiff was required to deposit the amount to liquidate the loan in the loan account, but the plaintiff deposited the amount in his own Account No......727. The plaintiff who claims to have deposited the amount in the loan account could have proved by the counter foil or deposit slip by calling a voucher from the Bank. It is obvious that if such hefty amount was deposited in certain account at different period of time that too on the basis of contract, the plaintiff was expected to produce the document which could have been the best evidence in the case to show performance of contract on part of plaintiff. If the document has been held back for the reason best known to the plaintiff, in absence thereof the Court is required to draw adverse inference. 18. If the document has been held back for the reason best known to the plaintiff, in absence thereof the Court is required to draw adverse inference. 18. Accordingly, we hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove the fact that he has deposited the amount in the Bank to discharge the loan to the extent of Rs. 10.00 lacs and consequently was entitled to get a decree for specific performance. Furthermore, the plaintiff by his own conduct has rescinded the contract by submitting letter Ex.D/2. Under these circumstances, denial of decree of specific performance as held by the learned trial Court appears to be just and proper and do not warrant any interference by this Court. 19. As an upshot, the present appeal, sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 20. A decree be drawn accordingly.