JUDGMENT : GOUTAM BHADURI, J. 1. Both the appeals are being heard together, as the parties to the agreement, which led filing the suit for specific performance are same except the subject matter of property. The appellant/plaintiff filed two civil suits for specific performance of sale of immovable property. 2. FA No. 78 of 2020 arises out of judgment and decree dated 15-1-2020 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Durg, in Civil Suit No. 77-A/2014 whereby the suit for specific performance of agreement was dismissed. 3. FA No. 80 of 2020 arises out of judgment and decree dated 15-1-2020 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Durg, in Civil Suit No. 57-A/2015 whereby the suit for specific performance of agreement was dismissed. The plaintiff is before this Court in both the appeals against such dismissal. 4. The brief resume of the facts necessary for our purpose are that: (a) FA No. 78 of 2020 (Civil Suit No. 77-A/2014): As per plaint averments a house situated over the land bearing khasra No. 419/14 admeasuring 2200 sq. ft. plot No. B2 situated at Risali, PH No. 22, RI Circle Durg, agreed to be sold in favour of the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 40.00 lacs. It is stated that the defendant received a cheque of Rs. 4.00 lacs and cash of Rs. 10.00 lacs on 10-7-2013 and subsequently, an amount of Rs. 26.00 lacs by way of cheque was received on 30-7-2013. On 10-7-2013 an agreement of sale was executed. Thereafter, possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant refused to execute the sale deed. Hence, the suit for specific performance was filed. (b) FA No. 80 of 2020 (Civil Suit No. 57-A/2015): As per plaint averments a house situated over the land bearing khasra No. 307/09 admeasuring 2034.20 sq. ft. plot No. B34 situated at Junvani, PH No. 21, RI Circle Durg, agreed to be sold for a sale consideration of Rs. 35.00 lacs. For which payment of Rs. 15.00 lacs and Rs. 20.00 lacs was paid by way of cheque on 19-6-2013. After payment of entire sale consideration, possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further stated that the agreement was executed on 20-6-2013 and simultaneously by such agreement the power to manage the property was conferred. For which payment of Rs. 15.00 lacs and Rs. 20.00 lacs was paid by way of cheque on 19-6-2013. After payment of entire sale consideration, possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further stated that the agreement was executed on 20-6-2013 and simultaneously by such agreement the power to manage the property was conferred. (c) The sale having not been executed as per the agreement, two separate civil suits were filed in respect of both the properties. (d) Common defence of the respondent/defendant was that the agreement was outcome of fraud and it was specifically stated that the husband of the defendant, who breathed his last, had purchased two properties and because of the financial bottle necking it was rented out. After his death since the tenants were occupant of the premises the defendant wanted to get it vacated, as such came in contact with one K. Devasahayam, who, in promise to get the property vacated, got certain signatures of the defendant. She further stated that K. Devasahayam was known to her deceased husband as such she believed him and had signed certain documents. She alleged that the sale consideration was never paid to her, therefore, it being outcome of fraud, criminal complaints were filed, which were pending. (e) On the basis of pleadings, issues were framed by the Court below. In civil suit No. 77-A/2014 plaintiff K.P. Singh examined himself as PW-1 and the attesting witness to the alleged agreement was examined. Defendant Smt. Gaurisha Mishra examined herself as DW-1 and one L.S. Kashyap as DW-2 whereas in Civil Suit No. 57-A/2015, only two witnesses were examined i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant. After conclusion of trial, both the civil suits were dismissed by the Court below. Thus, these appeals. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the agreements in the case which are marked as Ex.P/1 prove the contents of payment of sale consideration, which is corroborated by the entry of bank statements Ex.P/9 and P/4, respectively. He would further submit that the entry in the bank statement corroborated about the payment of sale consideration and there is no specific denial came to fore to rebut the same. He would also submit that the defendant though stated that the agreement was outcome of fraud, but no evidence was led to establish the same. He would further submit that the entry in the bank statement corroborated about the payment of sale consideration and there is no specific denial came to fore to rebut the same. He would also submit that the defendant though stated that the agreement was outcome of fraud, but no evidence was led to establish the same. In a result the agreement having been proved with payment of consideration, the learned trial Court completely misguided itself. He would submit that possession of the respective properties were also handed over by execution of the agreement, which would prove the fact of payment of sale consideration in its entirety of Rs. 40.00 lacs and Rs. 35.00 lacs respectively. Learned counsel would submit that the said agreement was unilaterally cancelled by the defendant without notice to the plaintiff, therefore, it would not have any legal effect and the suit having been filed in 2014 was very much within limitation, the plaintiff was entitled for a decree of specific performance. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant, per contra, would submit that by obtaining signatures of the defendant on certain papers after demise of her husband the same were used to take over the property without payment of sale consideration. He would further submit that for such purpose different criminal cases are also pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate as such the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court is well merited, which do not call for any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 8. The agreements for both the properties are marked as Ex.P/1. From Ex.P/1 of civil suit No. 77-A/2014 it is manifest that the house was comprised over khasra No. 419/14 admeasuring 2200 sq. ft. plot No. 2 and the agreement purports that the sale consideration was Rs. 40.00 lacs. Out of which, Rs. 4.00 lacs and Rs. 26.00 was paid by way of cheque and Rs. 10.00 lacs was paid in cash. In the evidence, the plaintiff stated that entire sale consideration of Rs. 40.00 lacs was paid. According to him, the cheque of Rs. 26.00 lacs though was given, but it was returned and as per the request of the defendant, it was paid in cash. Rest of the amount paid was paid by way of cash of Rs. 10.00 lacs and cheque of Rs. 4.00 lacs. 40.00 lacs was paid. According to him, the cheque of Rs. 26.00 lacs though was given, but it was returned and as per the request of the defendant, it was paid in cash. Rest of the amount paid was paid by way of cash of Rs. 10.00 lacs and cheque of Rs. 4.00 lacs. The aforesaid receipt of amount is denied by the defendant. 9. In respect of Civil Suit No. 57-A/2015 which pertains to property of house situated over khasra No. 307/09 admeasuring 2034.20 plot No. B34 the entire sale consideration of Rs. 35.00 lacs was paid. According to the statement of plaintiff (PW-1), the amount was paid by way of two cheques amounting to Rs. 15.00 lacs and Rs. 20.00 lacs, which is denied by the defendant. 10. In order to prove the payment, bank statement of plaintiff is marked as Ex.P/9 and Ex.P/4, respectively. Perusal of bank statement in Civil Suit No. 77-A/2014 shows a self withdrawal of Rs. 4.00 lacs by the plaintiff. The plaintiff stated that by Ex.P/11 a cheque of Rs. 26.00 lacs was given on 30-7-2013, which was duly received by the defendant and subsequently the same was returned by the defendant and in lieu thereof cash was given to her. Apart from this fact, the plaintiff stated that Rs. 10.00 lcas was paid in cash. 11. Likewise in the Civil Suit No. 57-A/2015 to prove the payment, bank statement of the plaintiff (Ex.P/4) is produced. Perusal of the same would show that a self withdrawal of Rs. 15.00 lacs was made on 19-6-2013 and an amount of Rs. 20.00 lacs was shown to have credited to the account of the defendant Gaurisha Mishra on 20-6-2013. 12. Both the bank statements i.e. Ex.P/9 and Ex.P/4, respectively are admittedly not the certified copies under the provisions of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (for short ‘the Act 1891’). Section 4 of the Act, 1891 purport that a certified copy of any entry in a banker s books shall in all legal proceedings be received . as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry, and shall be admitted as evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded in every case where, and to the same extent as, the original entry itself is now by law admissible, but not further or otherwise. as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry, and shall be admitted as evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded in every case where, and to the same extent as, the original entry itself is now by law admissible, but not further or otherwise. There is no evidence on record to prove the fact that the Bank’s statements were the original entries of ledger book, which were maintained in usual course of banking business so as to prove it by comparison by calling the ledger from the Bank. 13. The Supreme Court in the matter of Chandradhar Goswami and Others vs. Gauhati Bank Ltd. AIR 1967 SC 1058 observed that original entries alone under Section 34 of the Evidence Act would not be sufficient to charge any person with liability and as such, copies produced under Section 4 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act cannot be the conclusive proof. 14. In the instant case apart from the aforesaid proposition the statement of account, which are not certified under Section 4 of the Act, 1891 as it has no authenticity it may happen in a given case that such entires are made in the private table, therefore, unless it attaches the authenticity of proof the liability cannot be fastened to any one. In a consequence, in the facts of these cases the entries shown in the account statement cannot be held to be conclusive of the fact that sale consideration had been given to the respondent. Apart from the aforesaid fact when both the documents i.e. alleged bank statements are closely examined it shows self withdrawal of Rs. 4.00 lacs and Rs. 15.00 lacs, respectively. There is no receipt on record that such amount was ever paid to the defendant. 15. The plaintiff stated that the cheque amounting to Rs. 26.00 lacs was paid to the defendant, which was returned back and in lieu thereof cash was paid to her. We are unable to appreciate this fact, as it goes against the normal nature in view of the fact when the plaintiff states that he is involved in the business of purchase and sale of immovable property, therefore, parting with such hefty amount without any acknowledgment raises a doubt about authenticity of the same. 16. We are unable to appreciate this fact, as it goes against the normal nature in view of the fact when the plaintiff states that he is involved in the business of purchase and sale of immovable property, therefore, parting with such hefty amount without any acknowledgment raises a doubt about authenticity of the same. 16. Perusal of the agreement Ex.P/1 in Civil Suit No. 57-A/2015 do not bear the signature of the seller except at the last page. The defendant in the alternate has came out with a plea that after death of her husband certain documents were got signed and were used to form such transaction gets lamented which brings us to hold the lens over the ancillary documents Ex.D/1, D/2, D/3, D/4 which are the charge sheet of the criminal cases, which started at the behest of the defendant wherein such forgery was alleged. 17. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of agreement and the payment of sale consideration. In view of foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Court below is just and proper, warranting no interference of this Court. 18. Ex consequenti, both the appeals, sans substratum, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 19. Decree be drawn accordingly.