M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This is plaintiffs appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that her suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 15.11.1990 Ex.Pl cannot be decreed in her favour, It has been concurrently found that Exs. DI to D3 are other three agreements to sell executed between the parties at different points of time. None of those agreements ultimately were ended in the executing one document or the other, the amount of loan paid earlier had been adjusted. The alleged payment of Rs. 65,0007- at the time of execution of ag.eement dated 15.1.1990 Ex.Pl could not be proved on the file nor any separate receipt has been brought on record in respect of that payment. Reference in this regard has been made to the statement of PW-1 Ram Avtar, scribe of the agreement, PW-2 Ranjit Singh an attesting witness of the agreement dated 15.11.1990 Ex.Pl and the plaintiff-appellant herself who has appeared as PW-3. The view of the lower Appellate Court as reflected in last portion of paragraphs 13 and 14 reads as under:-

...The above facts go a long way t