“31. From the above said evidence it is clear that, the complainant though entered in to an agreement of sale as per Ex.D.1 for Rs.45,00,000/he has received Rs.80,00,000/when accused failed to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant. As discussed earlier, the negotiations as contended by the complainant are not reduced to writing and though P.W.2 was examined to prove the said negotiations but, as he himself admitted that, he was not present when the said negotiations took place his evidence cannot be believed. If at all as per the negotiations the accused is still in due of Rs.25,00,000/-as per the case of the complainant, the complainant ought not to have returned original agreement of sale at Ex.D.1 to the accused. Moreover, the complainant is not an ordinary person and he is educated and it cannot be believed that, no document is entered in to with respect to the alleged negotiations under which it was agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,05,00,000/-. Therefore, in the absence of any document to that effect the case of the complainant cannot be believed. By effective cross-examination of P.W.1, the accused is successful in rebutting the presumption under Sec.139 available in favour of the complainant as to the existence of legally recoverable debt. The above said admissions makes it very clear that, the
