As far as merits of the case are concerned even on reexamination before the first appellate court, as is apparent from the narration in para-22 of the impugned judgment and decree, it is apparent that once there is wide variation in the evidence given by the plaintiff's witnesses, inasmuch as, P.W.-1 admitted that a sum of Rs.90,000/-(ninety thousand) was paid after four months of the date of the agreement whereas receipt is dated 17.04.2009 i.e. almost 23 days of the date of execution of the agreement. Besides this, learned first appellate court has appreciated the fact that no independent witness to show payment of Rs.90,000/-(ninety thousand), has been examined and taking into consideration wide variation in the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 especially when P.W.-4, who is brother-in-law of the plaintiff has specifically averred that Rs.90,000/-(ninety thousand) were paid in front of Nanni Devi (P.W.-2), Shyam Lal (P.W.-1) and Phool Singh (P.W.-3), then there could not have been so much of variation as to the time and place of payment of remaining sale consideration. Besides this, it has also come on record that P.W.-4 categorically deposed before the trial court that Rs.90,000/- were paid in
