JUDGMENT : J.M.KHAZI, J. In this Regular Second Appeal defendant in O.S.No.132/2005, has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.116/2009, decreeing the entire suit filed by the plaintiff, by modifying the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.132/2005. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court in O.S.No.132/2005. 3. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.132/2005 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,12,051/- contending that he entered into an agreement with the defendant for construction of residential house after demolishing the old dilapidated building. In this regard, he paid a sum of Rs.1,12,051/- towards part payment. The defendant was supposed to demolish the old building and construct a new building in a total sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. However, defendant failed to carry out any work. On the other hand, a quarrel took place between plaintiff and defendant and the agreement came to an end. However, defendant failed to return the amount paid to him and therefore he is forced to file the suit for recovery of the said amount. 4. Defendant has filed written statement admitting that he and plaintiff entered into an agreement for construction of a new house after demolishing old dilapidated building. He has also admitted that of having received a sum of Rs.2,051/- and Rs.10,000/- by way of advance. He has disputed of having received Rs.1,00,000/-. Defendant has claimed that in fact, he demolished the old dilapidated building by incurring expenses of Rs.25,000/-. Defendant has also contended that he purchased electrical material worth Rs.10,800/-, plumbing material worth Rs.17,900/- and wall tiles worth Rs.18,900/- i.e, in all he purchased material for total sum of Rs.47,600/- and plaintiff has not paid the said sum and also the expenses incurred by him for demolition of the old building. In view of the matter, plaintiff is due in a sum of Rs.72,600/-. 5. With these pleadings, defendant also filed O.S.No.391/2005 for recovery of a sum of Rs.72,600/- against plaintiff as defendant No.1 and his wife as defendant No.2. 6. Of course plaintiff filed written statement in O.S.No.391/2005 reiterating the plaint averments of his suit. 7. Based on the pleadings trial Court framed necessary issues. 8. Evidence is led in O.S.No.132/2005, wherein PWs-1 to 3 including the plaintiff are examined and Exs.P1 to 8 are marked on behalf of plaintiff. 9. 6. Of course plaintiff filed written statement in O.S.No.391/2005 reiterating the plaint averments of his suit. 7. Based on the pleadings trial Court framed necessary issues. 8. Evidence is led in O.S.No.132/2005, wherein PWs-1 to 3 including the plaintiff are examined and Exs.P1 to 8 are marked on behalf of plaintiff. 9. On behalf of defendant, including the defendant DWs-1 and 2 are examined and Exs.D1 to 5 are marked. 10. The trial Court partly decreed the suit in O.S.No.132/2005 for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,051/- with interest at 6% per annum. 11. However, the trial Court dismissed the suit in O.S.No.391/2005 filed by the defendant. 12. Aggrieved by the same, both plaintiff and defendant respectively filed R.A.No.116/2009 and R.A.No.137/2009. 13. The First Appellate Court allowed R.A.No.116/2009 and decreed the suit in entirety for recovery of Rs.1,12,051/- with interest at 6% per annum from the defendant. 14. The First Appellate Court partly allowed R.A.No.137/2005 and ordered for recovery of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 6% from the plaintiff. 15. Plaintiff has not challenged the judgment and decree the First Appellate Court. 16. However, defendant has approached this Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court granting decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,12,051/- with interest at 6% per annum from him, contending that the First Appellate Court erred in holding that plaintiff has paid Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque issued by his wife. The evidence of PW-2 indicate that he was not present when the cheque was realised. The diary maintained by the plaintiff only carries two signatures of defendant, whereas plaintiff claims to have paid money to the defendant thrice. Rs.1,00,000/- was never paid to the defendant and it is an insertion made before the signature of defendant. No receipts are produced to prove the said payments. The cheque is also not produced through which the defendant was allegedly paid Rs.1,00,000/- by the plaintiff. The handwriting expert has not examined the signature in Ex.P8 cheque. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is not sustainable and hence the appeal. 17. Vide order dated 15.03.2023, the appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law: "1. Whether the first appellate Court is justified in reversing the finding of the Trial Court without proper appreciation of the evidence on record?" 18. Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and perused the record. 19. 17. Vide order dated 15.03.2023, the appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law: "1. Whether the first appellate Court is justified in reversing the finding of the Trial Court without proper appreciation of the evidence on record?" 18. Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and perused the record. 19. It is not in dispute that plaintiff is the owner of property No.CTS 194/2B of Ward No.IV of Bijapur City, consisting of a old dilapidated building. Defendant is an Engineer and Civil Contractor. It is also not in dispute that as per Ex.P3 plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement for construction of a new house after demolition of the old dilapidated building in a total sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. Defendant admit of having received Rs.12,051/- and Rs.10,000/- and acknowledge the same in the small notebook maintained by the plaintiff. However, he has disputed that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was also paid to him and he has acknowledged receipt of the same in the said notebook. He has alleged that in respect of the acknowledgement given by him for receipt of Rs.10,000/-, a line is inserted for payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. On the other hand, plaintiff has claimed that Rs.1,00,000/- paid to the defendant is through self cheque of the wife of plaintiff and the endorsement on the cheque revealed that defendant has received the cash from the bank. Plaintiff has disputed that defendant has demolished the building and on the other hand, alleged that at the initial stage itself difference of opinion crept in between the parties and as such, they got the entire work done through some other contractor, including the demolition. 20. The trial Court disbelieved the case of the plaintiff with regard to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and partly decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.12,051/-. However, the suit of the defendant came to be dismissed in entirety. 21. Before the First Appellate Court, a handwriting expert was appointed to examine the disputed signature of defendant in Ex.P8, which is the self cheque of the wife of plaintiff. The report state that the disputed signature of the said cheque is that of defendant. PW-2 is Ashok Yadavannavar, Junior officer of Siddeshwara Co-operative Bank, Vijayapur. His evidence establish the fact that the self cheque of the wife of plaintiff was presented by the defendant and he has received the proceeds of the said cheque. The report state that the disputed signature of the said cheque is that of defendant. PW-2 is Ashok Yadavannavar, Junior officer of Siddeshwara Co-operative Bank, Vijayapur. His evidence establish the fact that the self cheque of the wife of plaintiff was presented by the defendant and he has received the proceeds of the said cheque. The defendant has tried to attack the testimony of PW-2 by contending that the summons was issued to the Manager and PW-2 has no authority to speak. It is true that the summons was issued to the Manager of the Siddeshwar Co-operative Bank to give evidence regarding the cheque in question. Since the evidence on the said aspect is based on records, as the Manager would be busy with the bank work, he has authorised PW-2 to give evidence. Even the testimony of the Manager would have been the same, had he personally come and given evidence. 22. It appears since plaintiff did not have account or sufficient amount in his account, he has chosen to issue the cheque of his wife. Since it is a bearer cheque, the person who present the same is required to sign on the back of the cheque. Accordingly, the signature of defendant is forthcoming on the back of the cheque. On the back of the cheque, defendant has not affixed his full signature, but affixed his chota signature by writing the first three alphabets of his signature. On comparison with the admitted and sample signatures, the handwriting expert has clearly opined that it is the signature of defendant. Thus in all, the defendant has received a total sum of Rs.1,12,051/-. 23. So far as the contention of plaintiff that defendant has not at all carried out any work and therefore is liable to refund the entire sum of Rs.1,12,051/- is concerned, the First Appellate Court has rightly held that after the demolition of the old dilapidated building, plaintiff and his family members have performed Bhoomi Pooja. The plaintiff has not led any evidence to establish as to who has demolished the old building and removed the debris. In the light of the matter, the First Appellate Court has rightly held that it is the defendant who demolished the old building and removed the debris. After this stage difference of opinion arose between the parties, plaintiff stopped the defendant from carrying out further work. In the light of the matter, the First Appellate Court has rightly held that it is the defendant who demolished the old building and removed the debris. After this stage difference of opinion arose between the parties, plaintiff stopped the defendant from carrying out further work. Taking into consideration the evidence led by the defendant that he spent Rs.25,000/- for demolition of the old building and for removing the debris, the First Appellate Court has rightly held that plaintiff is liable to pay the said amount together with interest at 6% per annum. 24. So far as the contention of defendant that he purchased material for a total sum of Rs.47,600/- and given to the plaintiff is concerned, on the analysis of the evidence led by the defendant, the First Appellate Court has rightly held that the said fact is not proved. When the difference of opinion arose between the parties at the stage of demolition of the old building and removal of debris, at no stretch of imagination, it could be accepted that defendant would purchase electrical material, plumbing material and wall tiles which should be used at the end stage of the construction. 25. The agreement between the parties was to the effect that plaintiff would pay the money and defendant would get the material and put up construction. In the light of the contract entered into between the parties, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to purchase these material from the defendant and keep it ready for construction. Therefore, the First Appellate Court rightly rejected the claim of the defendant for sum of Rs.47,600/-. The trial Court without proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record had partly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and partly decreed it for a sum of Rs.12,051/-. 26. Instead of filing separate suit, defendant could have claimed counter claim. However, the trial Court dismissed the entire suit filed by the defendant. On reappreciation of the evidence, the First Appellate Court rightly held that defendant has proved that for demolition of the existing building and removal of debris, he had spent Rs.25,000/- and ordered to be paid by the plaintiff. Since defendant has failed to establish that, he had purchased material worth Rs.47,600/- and handed over to the plaintiff, his claim for the said amount is rejected by the First Appellate Court. Since defendant has failed to establish that, he had purchased material worth Rs.47,600/- and handed over to the plaintiff, his claim for the said amount is rejected by the First Appellate Court. The findings given by the First Appellate Court is consistent with the evidence placed on record and accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered. 27. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal filed by the appellant/defendant under Section 100 of C.P.C is hereby dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree 15.06.2013 in RA.No.116 and 137/2009 on the file of Prl.District Judge, Bijapur is confirmed. (iii) The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court records along with copy of this judgment forthwith.