NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs.5 lacs alongwith interest thereupon till realization of the amount.

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned District Courts were in error in non-suiting the appellant as they failed to appreciate that on 16.08.2013, defendant by representing himself to be owner of agricultural land measuring 5 acres/suit land, had offered to sell the suit land to the plaintiff @ Rs.25 lacs. Defendant had also received Rs.5 lacs from the plaintiff as advance and receipt Ex.P1 was executed in respect of the said payment. The said receipt was executed on stamp paper which was duly signed and thumb marked by defendant. It is submitted that the target date for execution of Sale Deed was set up for 16.09.2013. However, defendant did not turn up for execution of Sale Deed and kept postponing the matter. Plaintiff then made enquiries and came to know that defendant was not owner of agricultural land of 5 acres. Thus, defendant had played fraud with the plaintiff by misrepresenting himself as owner. Subsequently, plaintiff had discovered that the defendant has gone abroad. Clearly therefore, fraud has been played by the plaintiff.

It is further submitted that both the District Courts failed to appreciate the fact that the receipt i.e. Ex. P1 dated 16.08.2013 is the proof that a transaction had been duly executed between the appellant and the respondent at the time of receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- for execution of Agreement to Sell on 16.09.2013 i.e. within one month. Thus, the agreement dated 16.08.2013 is a valid document and the respondent miserably failed to prove this fact otherwise.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that both the District Courts failed to consider the fact that the respondent- defendant never had the intention to execute the sale as the respondent- defendant never owned the said acres of land which was also verified by PW-2 Sunil Sidhu, who was witness to the said agreement dated 16.08.2013 who has stated that he saw the revenue records and found that the respondent-defendant never owned the said land. Thus, the findings of both the courts below are illegal and wrong.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the District Courts failed to appreciate the fact that the document/agreement dated 16.08.2013 bears the signature as well as the thumb prints of the respondent-defendant and thus, proves the veracity of the said agreement. The respondent-defendant cannot simply deny the said agreement dated 16.08.2013. Thus, the findings of both the courts below are illegal and wrong and are liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that both the District Courts also failed to appreciate the fact that the document/agreement dated 16.08.2013 is also proved by the fact that the appellant-plaintiff also examined PW-2 Sunil Sidhu who had stated that the agreement/document dated 16.08.2013 was executed in his presence. Thus, the execution of agreement dated 16.08.2013 is also proved by the presence of this witness. However, the courts below totally ignored this fact and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff wrongly.

It is accordingly prayed that present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file in a great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant.

A perusal of record of the case shows that plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence whatsoever in support of his above noted contentions. The only document produced by the plaintiff is the Receipt dated 16.08.2013 Ex.P1, which was allegedly executed when the