and one among which was Ext.P1. He further asserted that making use of other cheque another case was filed, the details of which also were deposed by DW3. Of course, it is pointed out that there was a criminal case initiated against DW3 at the instance of the appellant and for that reason DW3 braved to depose against the appellant. But, that contention was not accepted by the trial court, instead it was opined that same would have acted as a catalyst for DW3 to depose truth in court. When DW1 admitted that it was though DW3 only she had acquaintance with the 1 st respondent and the dispute between the appellant and his brother that culminated in a criminal case was in 1998 whereas the transaction involved herein was in 2003, the aforesaid admissions of PW1 goes a long way against the case of the prosecution. Thus, there are enough materials to probablise the version of DW3 regarding lending of money by DWs 1 and 2 to the 1 st respondent although they denied that fact in court. DW1 admitted that he is a witness in the agreement for sale which is the subject matter of Ext.D4 suit. That also supports the version of the DW3. Of course, the agreement for reconveyance purportedly entered into between DW2 and the parents of the 1 st
