F.M. Reis, J.

Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellants and Mr. Rohit Kapadia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondents.

2. The above Appeal was admitted on 02.05.2003 on the following substantial questions of law thereafter an additional substantial question of law was framed after hearing the parties on 31.03.2016 which read as follows :

(1) Whether the Courts below could have come to legally interpret that the payments made by the Plaintiff to G.A. Naik and Y.G. Naik though on instructions of Defendant No.5, were not in terms of the Agreement dated 2/8/1985, when the burden of proof shifted on the Defendants, once the Plaintiff had discharged his burden by proving that fact of payment of the money to the said G.A. Naik and Y.G. Naik, who were the authorised representatives of Defendant No.1, as held out by Defendant No.1 in its brochure, in the absence of the Defendants to examine Defendant No.5?

(2) Whether it is impermissible for a Respondent, in the absence of cross objections, to challenge any finding of the Trial Court's Judgment and Decree ?

Additional Substantial Questions of Law, framed upon hearing the parties on:

(3) Whether the First Appellate Court has misconstrued the document at Exhibit PW-8 executed between the parties to come to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled for the relief sought in the suit.

(4) Whether in any event the Lower Appellate court was justified to dismiss the suit in to in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Briefly, it is the case of the Appellants that the Appellant entered into an Agreement on 02.08.1995 with the Respondents to purchase a flat bearing no. B-5 in Building B in the Complex known as Sapana Gardens at Porvorim. The Appellant who is of Portuguese National Citizen of Indian Origin, desired to purchase a place for residential purpose. The Appellant engaged the services of M./s. Straight Deal to look after the interest of the Appellant during his absence from India and in order to keep up with the commitment in respect of the payments to be made to the Respondents, the Appellant kept signed cheques to be issued as per the demands made by the Respondents with the said M/s. Straight Deal. Thereafter, the Appellant was directed to pay a part payment of a sum of Rs.2,07,000/- to G. A. Naik and Y. G. Naik at Bombay who are representatives of the Respondent no. 1 whose name figures in the brochure issued by the Respondents. It is further contended that to facilitate the Appellant to find the residence of the said representative at Bombay, the Respondent no. 5 drew a sketch in his own handwriting indicating the road and the telephone of the said representatives. Accordingly, the Appellant paid the said sum of Rs.2,07,000/- by four cheques dated 26.08.1995 which were postdated to the said representatives. All the monies for the payments came from the NRI Account of the Appellant in Citibank in Mumbai. The Appellant thereafter came to Goa on 08.03.1996 and began dealing directly with the Respondents and when the Appellant came down to Goa and inspected the construction of the said Flat in the complex, it was found that large number of work was incomplete. After going through the accounts, the Appellant also realised that he had paid a sum of Rs.9,08,000/- to the Respondents and their representatives though the Agreement was for a sum of Rs.8,30,000/- and additional amount was towards extra work. As per the Agreement, the Respondents were to give possession to the Appellant within 30 months and thereafter the Appellant took possession of the Flat on 05.04.1998 and on which day all the keys of the suit Flat were handed over to the Appellant and thereafter the Appellant furnished the said Flat besides he also installed imported furniture which were duly cleared by the customs authorities. In spite of the above facts, the Respondents wrote a letter to the Appellant dated 12.06.1998 demanding payments and thre