validity of Ex.A1 sale agreement. According to the defendants, Ex.A1 sale agreement had been created by the plaintiff for the purpose of the case and that they had not executed the said agreement in favour of the plaintiff as put forth in the plaint. To sustain his case that Ex.A1 sale agreement had been entered into between the parties concerned, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and also examined the attestor of the sale agreement as PW2 and the scribe of the sale agreement as PW3. PWs 2 and 3 have clearly deposed that the parties had entered into the sale agreement with reference to the sale of the suit properties for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- and accordingly, the parties had incorporated the sale agreement by way of writing on 17.12.2002 and PW3, the scribe, has clearly deposed about the scribing of the said agreement as well as the knowledge of the contents of the same to the plaintiff and the defendants and PW2 has clearly deposed about the attestation of the sale agreement along with another witness to the knowledge of the executants of the sale agreement. The abovesaid evidence of PWs 2 and 3, despite their cross examination on the part of the defendants, has not been shown to be untrustworthy or unbelievable. On the other hand, considering the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 and PW1, in toto, it is seen that the sale agreement had been entered into between the parties concerned for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- and accordingly, based on the sale agreement, it is further seen that the defendants had received Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on the date of sale agreement itself and it is also found that the parties had agreed to complete the sale transaction on or before 30.05.2003. In the light of the abovesaid factors, it is found that the trial Court has rightly analyzed and assessed the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 in toto and found them to be acceptable, inspiring and trustworthy. No enemity, as such, has been attributed against PWs 2 and 3 for deposing in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Furthermore, as could be seen from the evidence adduced by the respective parties, particularly, the evidence of DW1, namely, the fourth defendant, the sale deed executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff marked as Ex.A5, has also been scribed by PW3. Therefore, it is found that there is no specific motive on the part of PWs 2 and 3 to testify against the defendants with reference to the sale agreement and on the other hand, as determined by the trial Court, inasmuch as the parties had entered into a sale agreement with reference to the sale of the suit properties as put forth by the plaintiff, accordingly, PWs 2 and 3 having witnessed the abovesaid transaction as the attestor and the scribe, they had clearly deposed about the same without any ambiguity and in such view of the matter, the plaintiff by way of the evidences of PWs 2 and 3 has clearly established that Ex.A1 sale agreement had been executed by the defendants in his favour with reference to the sale of the suit properties for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- and that
