20.In the light of the abovesaid discussions, merely because the defendant has admitted the signature in the sale agreement, however considering the facts as above discussed, when the defendant had not actually entered into any agreement with the plaintiff qua the suit properties and on the other hand, the sale agreement had come to be created by the plaintiff in connivance with her husband only based on the signed stamp/ blank papers obtained from the defendant at the time of the loan transaction and accordingly, by way of Ex.B1 Muchalika, the plaintiff had also agreed to hand over the created sale agreement in the name of the defendant as recited therein, in such view of the matter, the determination of this first appellate Court that the sale agreement is not a genuine one, needs no interference. Similarly, even though the defendant has not pleaded about the panchayat in the written statement, however, the panchayat having been clearly admitted by the plaintiff during the course of her evidence and it is only through the plaintiff, the copy of the panchayat muchalika has come to be exhibited, accordingly, inasmuch as the panchayat muchalika had been entered into between the parties, in such view of the matter, the contentions put forth by the plaintiff's counsel that the first appellate Court had accepted the defence version without their being any pleas and evidence qua the said defence version, as such, cannot be accepted. Particularly, when the plaintiff is found to have accepted to return back the sale agreement created in the name of the defendant by way of Ex.B1 Muchalika and if really, the sale agreement had been executed only for the sale of the suit properties as averred in the plaint, it does not stand to reason as to why the plaintiff had agreed to return the sale agreement under Ex.B1 Muchalika. Furthermore, the plaintiff had not only agreed to return the sale agreement in the name of the defendant but also agreed to return the blank signed stamp papers and signed blank cheques and the abovesaid factors viewed cumulatively would only go to show that as signed blank/stamp papers, blank cheques have been secured by the plaintiff's husband at the time of money transaction, after the parties had agreed to settle the issue under Ex.B1 Muchalika, the plaintiff also without any demur had agreed to return back the same and in toto, so viewed, it is found that the first appellate Court is wholly justified in accepting the defence version and the abovesaid determination of the first appellate Court is found to be only based on the admitted evidence adduced by the plaintiff as above discussed. Furthermore, as above discussed, considering the terms of the alleged sale agreement, particularly, the parties having agreed to fix a time limit of one year for paying
