6. However, the Courts below clearly erred in denying the relief of refund. Of course the question that first arises for consideration is how much was paid by the appellant to the defendants. Ex.A.3 is a registered sale agreement. It states that a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant. Under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act it is not open to the first defendant to let in any oral evidence to the contrary. The plaintiff has also marked Ex.A.22 to Ex.A.30 receipts issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Of course the receipts are in the name of the first defendant only. But the plaintiff has marked the original receipts. Therefore, I am satisfied that the payments covered under the said receipts were actually paid only by the plaintiff to the Housing Board. The amount paid by the plaintiff to the Housing Board comes to Rs.49,839/-. The plaintiff would of course make a further claim that he paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- on 10.10.2002. An endorsement made purportedly to this effect is found on the reverse side of Ex.A.3. The Courts below have concurrently rendered a finding that this endorsement is highly suspicious and cannot be believed. I hold that the plaintiff's claim of having paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the first defendant on 10.10.2002 has not been established.
