Rs.25,000/- was paid after three months and at that time also he was called and an endorsement was obtained with reference to the same and also stated that in the said endorsement, all the executants had signed and he had attested the same as the second attestor and the first attestor is one Ravi and has also deposed that the third payment of Rs.15,500/- was paid within four months thereafter and with reference to the same also, an endorsement had been obtained on the sale agreement and the said endorsement was written by one Malliga and acknowledging the payment, all the executants had signed the same and he had attested the said endorsement as the first witness and the second attestor is one Elumalai and according to him, Boopathy had died after the second endorsement and also deposed that Manoharan and Chandra Ammal had executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and in the said sale deed marked as Ex.A4 (copy), he had also attested the same as witness and also deposed clearly that on the date of the sale agreement, the plaintiff has paid an advance sum of Rs.19,500/- to the executants as part of the sale consideration and thus, from the evidence of PW2, the attestor, it is seen that he has, in all material facts, corroborated the evidence of the plaintiff examined as PW1 and despite cross-examination, nothing has been culled out from him to discredit his testimony in any aspect and accordingly, it is found that the plaintiff has adduced acceptable and reliable materials in support of his case and in particular, in support of his plea that Boopathy had also joined the execution of Ex.A1 sale agreement and also acknowledged the receipt of the balance sale consideration in the endorsements made with reference to the same on the reverse side of the sale agreement and in such view of the matter, when the defendants are not able to cull out any point from the mouth of PW1 and PW2 to discredit them or in support of their defence version, as rightly determined by the Trial Court, the plaintiff’s case had been amply established through the acceptable and convincing evidence of PW1 and PW2 and therefore, it is found that the Trial Court has rightly granted the reliefs in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.
