The burden of proof in civil suits rest on the plaintiff to establish claims with credible evidence, which was not satisfactorily demonstrated in this case leading to dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondents. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent funding of the Trial Court and also First Appellate Court.

2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit for the respondent in O.S.No.335/2017 seeking the relief of recovery of money contending that there was a sale agreement and defendant agreed to sell the property at the rate of Rs.37,00,000/- per acre and he had received advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiffs and also contended in the plaint that plaintiff is making an attempt to draw the compensation amount from the 2^nd defendant awarded in respect of suit schedule property since the property was acquired by the K.I.A.D.B. After issuance of suit summons, defendant No.1 has appeared and filed written statement contending that plaintiffs have created the agreement of sale and he has not executed any agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff and suit schedule property is an ancestral and joint family property of 1^st defendant and his family members and he has no right to sell or execute the agreement and prays for dismissal of the suit. The 2^nd defendant also in the written statement contended that the averments made in the plaint are not true and contended that Sy.No.159 measuring 4 acres 36 guntas Yallapura of Tumkur District has been acquired by the 2^nd defendant for public purpose. The preliminary and final notifications are also issued and plaintiff and 1^st defendant have created the document and prays to dismiss the suit.

3. The Trial Court having considered pleadings, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence and plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked document Ex.P.1 to 7 and also examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3. On the other hand, 1^st defendant examined himself as D.W.1, but not marked any documents. The 2^nd defendant also not lead any evidence, however, Trial Court taking into note of both oral and documentary evidence, not accepted the case of the plaintiff for having advanced the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and doubted the very evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and also comes to the conclusion that mere examination of the P.W.2 and P.W.3, it cannot be accepted that they are the witnesses having witnessed the payment of sale consideration.

4. The Trial Court having considered the material on record in paragraph No.15, comes to the conclusion that mere consideration of document Ex.P.2, Court cannot comes to the conclusion that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has been paid and no other material has been placed before the Trial Court comes to a conclusion that amount Rs.10,00,000/- was paid and plaintiff has not placed on record for having paid the amount and also not accepted the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and also the document is not a registered document and the same is an unregistered document and though contended that there was a document of Ex.P.2 and the same cannot be accepted.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.131/2024. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the point whether the Trial Court committed an error in holding that plaintiffs have not proved that the defendant had received an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as advance amount agreeing to sell the suit schedule property and whether the Trial Court erred in holding the defendant No.1 is not able to pay any amount and whether the judgment of the Trial Court requires interference. The Appellate Court also havi