Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6th December 2013 passed by learned Third Additional Judge of the Court of First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in Civil Suit No.1-A/2012 by which the appellant's/plaintiff's suit has been dismissed.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit against defendant/respondent seeking a decree of specific performance on the pleadings, inter alia, that the defendant/respondent entered into an agreement to sell the property in dispute on 28.7.2009 and executed an agreement on that day agreeing to sell the property in dispute for a consideration of Rs.31,25,000/-. It was further pleaded that initially, at the time of execution of agreement, the plaintiff paid and defendant received cash of Rs.15 lakhs in the presence of witnesses. Further pleadings of the plaintiff was that later on, defendant from time to time, received amount towards the sale consideration and in this manner, a further amount of Rs.7 lakhs was also paid by the plaintiff to the defendant and another agreement was also executed on 20.1.2011 containing recital that defendant had received a total amount of Rs.22 lakhs from the plaintiff towards execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff. However, when upon demand of the plaintiff, the defendant did not execute the sale deed even though, the plaintiff had collected all necessary revenue documents, a registered notice was given to the defendant, followed by a paper publication and finally, the suit was filed seeking decree of specific performance.

3. The defence of defendant No.1 was that he did not enter into any agreement to sell his property to the plaintiff nor any agreement was executed by him. He did not receive any amount from the plaintiff towards part payment of sale consideration. It was the case of the defendant that the plaintiff is a money lender who has obtained the signature of the defendant as the defendant had obtained certain loan. According to defendant, it was merely a loan transaction and the defendant has already paid the entire amount of loan borrowed by him from the plaintiff but the plaintiff is not issuing receipts and now an attempt has been made by the plaintiff to grab the property of the defendant on certain forged and fabricated documents.

4. On the bass of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as five issues which are as under:-

^^1- D;k Áfroknh ØŒ 1 ds }kjk oknh ds i{k esa fnukad 28-7-2009 dks ekStk dksuh IkŒgŒuaŒ 17] jkŒfuŒeaŒ fcykliqj fLFkr oknHkwfe [kljk uacj 223@3 ,oa 225@1] jdck Øe'k 0-07 ,oa 0-18 ,dM+ dqy 0-25 ,dM+ Hkwfe dks 1]25]000@& :i;s Áfr fMlfey ds Hkko ls dqy 31]25]000@& ¼:i;s bDrhl yk[k iPphl gtkj :i;s½ esa foØ; djus dk djkj dj bdjkjukek fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k gSA

2- D;k oknh us Áfroknh ØŒ 1 dks fofHkUu frfFk;ksa ij djkj fnukad 28-7-2009 dh 'krksZ ds ifjikyu esa dqy 31]25]000@& :i;s esa ls :i;s 22]00]000@& ¼ckbZl yk[k :i;s½ dks Hkqxrku dj fn;k gSA

3- D;k oknh] Áfroknh ØŒ 1 dks lafonk dh 'krksZ ds vuqlkj 'ks"k jkf'k dk lank; dj iathd`r foØ; i= fu"iknu djokus ds fy;s lnSo gh rS;kj ,oa rRij jgk gSA

4- D;k oknh] Áfroknh ØŒ 1 ds }kjk okn Hkwfe dk iathd`r foØ; i= lafonk ds fofufnZ"V ikyu esa] oknh ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr fd;s tkus dh vkKfIr ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA

5- lgk;rk ,oa O;;A**

Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself and two other witnesses to prove the agreement executed on two occasions i.e. 28-7-2009 and 20.1.2011 as Ex.P-3 & P-4 respectively. In denial of the plaintiff's case, the defendant examined himself and three other witnesses. Defendant came out with the document prepared by himself containing noting of repayment made to the plaintiff.

5. Learned trial Court, however, recorded a finding that the so called transaction was suspicious and it was not proved by reliable evidence that there was an agreement to sell the property. The learned trial Court in order to reach to the said conclusion took into consideration that the plaintif