JUDGMENT : 1. These two appeals arise from two suits O.S. Nos. 2/2006 and 214/2007, which were disposed by the Trial Court by a common judgment, hence these appeals are also disposed by a common judgment. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 2/2006, who is the defendant in O.S. No. 214/2007, is the appellant challenging the judgment and decree in both the suits, which are modified in the Cross Objection by the First Appellate Court. 2. The first suit filed is O.S. No. 214/2007. It was originally filed as O.S. No. 90/2005 before the Munsiff’s Court, and thereafter it was transferred to the Sub Court, renumbered as O.S. No. 214/2007 and jointly tried along with O.S. No. 2/2006 treating O.S. No. 2/2006 as the leading case. 3. The parties are referred to according to their status in O.S. No. 2/2006. 4. The Item No. 1 in the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 2/2006 is 10 cents of land in Sy.No.52/11 of Karuvatta village and Item No.2 therein is the building in Item No.1. Plaint Schedule room in O.S. No. 214/2007 is one of the shop rooms in Item No.2 building in O.S. No. 2/2006. 5. O.S. No. 2/2006 is filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of Ext.A1 Agreement by executing the sale deed by the defendant or in the alternative to realize the advance amount of Rs.1,25,000/- paid thereon and Rs.2,50,000/- expended by him for construction of the building and thus totaling Rs.3,75,000/-. According to the plaintiff, as per Ext.A1 agreement, the plaint schedule property having an extent of 10 cents was agreed to be sold by the defendant for a total amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- and on the date of the agreement itself, the defendant received the entire amount; that possession of the property was given to him and that he constructed Item No.2 building expending Rs.2,50,000/- 6. O.S. No. 214/2007 is filed for recovery possession of the plaint schedule room with arrears of rent and compensation on the allegation that the defendant therein is a tenant. According to the plaintiff therein, he has constructed the building in the property and the defendant therein is a tenant in Room bearing No. 369/A situated in the aforesaid 10 cents of land. 7. According to the plaintiff therein, he has constructed the building in the property and the defendant therein is a tenant in Room bearing No. 369/A situated in the aforesaid 10 cents of land. 7. The Trial Court decreed O.S. No. 2/2006 in part, allowing the plaintiff to recover an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 09.12.1998 till realization with proportionate cost. The Trial Court found that Ext.A1 is not intended as an Agreement for sale and that the plaintiff paid Rs.1,25,000/- to the defendant as per the said document and that there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff constructed Item No.2 building. The Trial Court partly decreed O.S. No. 214/2007, directing the plaintiff to vacate the plaint schedule room, holding that the plaintiff is a tenant of the plaint schedule room on the basis of the Ext. X1 Agreement. 8. The plaintiff filed the appeal before the First Appellate Court challenging the judgment and decree in both the suits. The defendant raised a cross-objection in A.S. No. 83/2011 arising from O.S. No.2/2006. The First Appellate Court dismissed both appeals but allowed the cross-objection, holding that Exts. A1 and A2 are not proved and dismissing O.S.No.2/2006. This Court admitted Both these second appeals on the following common substantial questions of law formulated in both the appeals and additional substantial question of law in RSA No.275/2013. Common substantial questions of law 1) Whether the Trial Court is justified in arriving at a conclusion that Exhibits A1 and A2 are executed as security for the amount received by the defendant from the plaintiff and not with the intention of selling the property, after having found that the plaintiff and defendant had financial dealings and plaintiff was put in possession of the property and that the signature in Exhibits A1, A2 and A8 documents are that of the defendant, especially, when the defence taken was of complete denial of the Plaint averment? 2) Whether the Trial Court is justified in ordering eviction of the appellant from the plaint schedule room on the ground that the tenancy was terminated even after arriving at a finding that there is no landlord- tenant relationship between the respondent and the appellant? 2) Whether the Trial Court is justified in ordering eviction of the appellant from the plaint schedule room on the ground that the tenancy was terminated even after arriving at a finding that there is no landlord- tenant relationship between the respondent and the appellant? 3) Has not the Lower Appellate Court erred in appreciating the facts and circumstances, pleadings and evidence in its correct perspective and in arriving at the finding that execution of Exhibits A1 and A2 documents are not proved by the appellant properly? 4) Has not the Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that the appellant is a tenant of the respondent relying on Exhibits X1 and X2 documents and Deposition of witnesses, ignoring the pleadings of the respondents that the Lease Deed was created to produce the same before the BSNL Authorities, so as to enable the appellant to open an STD Booth in the building and ignoring the fact that Exhibit X1 is not admissible in evidence for want of registration and non-payment of proper Stamp Duty? Additional substantial questions of law in RSA No.275/ 2013. 5) Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in dismissing I.A. No.745 of 2011 for amendment of Written Statement in O.S. No.214 of 2007? 9. I heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Smt. Sumathi Dandapani instructed by Advocate Sri.Millu Dandapani and the learned counsel for the respondent Sri. M.Narendra Kumar. 10. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the evidence of PW2 to PW5, the execution of Ext.A1 and A2 is sufficiently proved before the Court. The Trial Court rightly found that Exts. A1 and A2 are executed by the defendant. When Ext.A1 and A2 are found proved by the Trial Court, the Trial Court ought to have decreed O.S. No. 2/2006 granting specific performance and dismissed O.S.No.214/2007 for eviction. At any rate, the First Appellate Court ought not to have interfered with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court allowing O.S.No.2/2006 in part. Senior Counsel further contended that the evidence would clearly indicate that Ext. X1 Lease Agreement was executed only for the purpose of producing the same before the BSNL authorities for shifting an STD Booth which the plaintiff was conducting in another premises. The defendant did not even have a copy of the Ext.X1 Agreement to produce the same in Court. Senior Counsel further contended that the evidence would clearly indicate that Ext. X1 Lease Agreement was executed only for the purpose of producing the same before the BSNL authorities for shifting an STD Booth which the plaintiff was conducting in another premises. The defendant did not even have a copy of the Ext.X1 Agreement to produce the same in Court. It would indicate that the said agreement was executed not for the purpose of any rental arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant. Senior counsel contended that there is evidence to show that the building in the plaint schedule property came into existence after the execution of Ext.A1. In such a case, the only inference possible is that it is constructed by the plaintiff. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is material contradiction in the evidence of PW2 to PW5 with respect to the execution of the Exts.A1 and A2 documents. As per Ext.A1, 10 cents of land on the side of National Highway was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff for Rs.1,25,000/-which is highly improbable. It is stated that the entire consideration was paid on the date of execution of the said document. The execution of Exts. A1 and A2 are not proved. Even if it is found that Ext.A1 and A2 are proved, the only conclusion possible is that it was executed only for the purpose of securing the amount mentioned in Ext.A1. The learned counsel invited my attention to the recitals in Exts. X1 and X2. Ext.X2 would clearly reveal that the arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant is that of a rental one and not arising from an agreement for sale. The learned counsel further contended that there is no evidence on record to prove that the plaintiff expended money for constructing the building in the plaint schedule property. The existence of tenants of the defendants in the other rooms of the building itself would reveal that the building is constructed by the defendant. 12. I have considered rival contentions. 13. Both the counsels took me through the evidence of PW2 to PW5. On going through the evidence of PW2 to PW5, even though there are some minor contradictions in their evidence, the execution of Ext.A1 and A2 is sufficiently proved by the evidence of PW2 and PW5. 12. I have considered rival contentions. 13. Both the counsels took me through the evidence of PW2 to PW5. On going through the evidence of PW2 to PW5, even though there are some minor contradictions in their evidence, the execution of Ext.A1 and A2 is sufficiently proved by the evidence of PW2 and PW5. The Trial Court, who had occasioned to see the demeanour of those witnesses, arrived at a finding that Ext.A1 and A2 are proved before the Trial Court. So, I am of the considered view that there is perversity from the part of the First Appellate Court in the matter of appreciation of evidence of PW2 to PW5 to find that Ext.A1 and A2 are not proved. I hold that Exts.A1 and A2 are proved as executed by the defendant. 14. On going through Exts.A1 and A2, it would indicate that 10 cents of land was agreed to be sold for a total consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/-.It is stated that the plaintiff has paid the total amount to the defendant on the date of execution of Ext.A1. Admittedly as on the date of execution of Ext. A1, there was an encumbrance on the property. When the property is having encumbrance, the purchaser will not make the full payment as per the agreement for sale, such full payment is highly improbable. Even otherwise, when an agreement for sale is executed, normally only a part of the sale consideration would be paid. There should be some special reason for making payment of the entire amount. No special reason is revealed in the evidence for payment of the entire amount. That apart, 10 cents of land situated on the side of the highway was agreed to be sold for a nominal amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-. Hence, I am of the view that Exts.A1 is executed only for the purpose of securing the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. Since the plaintiff has paid the said amount to the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to get the said amount with interest from the defendant. 15. The case of the plaintiff is that he obtained possession of the plaint schedule property, and he constructed the building therein, expending an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. For this, there is no evidence from the part of the plaintiff. 15. The case of the plaintiff is that he obtained possession of the plaint schedule property, and he constructed the building therein, expending an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. For this, there is no evidence from the part of the plaintiff. Even though PW6 was examined as the Contractor who constructed the building, the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, did not rely on his evidence. I do not find any reason to take a different stand. The evidence of DW3 to DW5, who proved Exts.B6 to B8 Lease Deeds, would prove that they are other tenants of the defendant in Item No.2 building. If the building is constructed by the plaintiff, there could not be any tenant of the defendant in the said building. The plaintiff has not succeeded in proving that it is the plaintiff who has constructed Item No.2 building. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled to get the said amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the defendant. 16. The Trial Court rightly granted decree in O.S.No.2/2006 for Rs.1,25,000/- and interest in favour of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court ought not to have interfered with the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2/2006. 17. Exts.X1 and X2 would prove that the arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant is that of a lease. Ext.X1 is executed by the defendant. In Ext.X1, there is a specific recital that it is the defendant who constructed the building in the plaint schedule property. If it was an agreement prepared only for the purpose of producing before the BSNL Authorities as claimed by the plaintiff, there was no need to show a security amount of Rs. 20,000/- in Ext.X1. Ext.X2 is a covering letter for Ext.X1 submitted by the plaintiff himself to the Commercial officer BSNL, Alappuzha. He, in his own handwriting, stated that the plaint schedule property is taken on lease from the defendant. There is nothing to disbelieve Ext. X1 and X2. Hence, the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, rightly held that the arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant is that of a lease and allowed O.S. No.214/2007 ordering eviction. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I answer substantial questions of law of Nos. 1 and 3 in both the appeals in favour of the appellant and the remaining substantial questions of law in favour of the respondent. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I answer substantial questions of law of Nos. 1 and 3 in both the appeals in favour of the appellant and the remaining substantial questions of law in favour of the respondent. R.S.A No. 263/2013 is allowed in part without cost setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in A.S. No. 83/2011 and restoring the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No. 2/2006. R.S.A. No. 275/2013 is dismissed without cost. 19. The learned counsel for the respondent brought to my notice the judgment of this Court dated 15.02.2023 in W.P.C No.3916/2021 filed by the appellant. It is seen that a part of the plaint schedule property having an extent of 2.28 ares was acquired for widening National Highway and the land acquisition authorities were directed to keep the compensation in a deposit having a high rate of interest in a nationalized bank on condition that it shall not be released till the disposal of these R.S.A. No.263/2013 and 275/2013. The Senior Counsel for the appellant also confirmed the said judgment. It is seen that the appellant is having charge over the plaint schedule property for the decree amount as per decree in O.S.No.2/2006. In view of the disposal of these Appeals, the appellant herein is permitted to claim the decree amount with interest and cost decreed as per Decree dated 30.03.2011 in O.S.No.2/2006 of the Sub Court Mavelikkara from the land acquisition authorities out of the land acquisition compensation amount kept under deposit. On receipt of the said amount by the appellant, the same shall be in full satisfaction of the decree in O.S.No.2/2006. The respondent is permitted to claim the remaining part of the deposit from the land acquisition authorities in the absence of any encumbrance or attachment over the same. It is made clear that on payment of the said part of land acquisition compensation to the appellant, the entire claim of the appellant over the plaint schedule properties would be satisfied, and he will not be entitled to claim any other amount by way of enhancement or otherwise on account of the land acquisition of the property.