the cogent evidence led by the plaintiff. On the contrary, testimony of defendant No.1 himself is sufficient to discard the version of the defendants. Defendant No.1 stated that after he had filed suit against the plaintiff for rendition of accounts, the plaintiff called the defendants to settle the accounts and at that time, a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- was found due from the defendants to the plaintiff, who obtained thumb impressions of the defendants on blank papers which were subsequently converted into impugned agreement. It is completely improbable and unreliable that after defendant No.1 had filed suit against the plaintiff for rendition of accounts, the defendants still affixed thumb impressions on blank papers at the asking of the plaintiff. This testimony of defendant No.1 himself is, therefore, sufficient to demolish the entire version pleaded by the defendants. However, keeping in view the fact that the agreement had been executed to secure repayment of the due amount from the defendants, lower appellate Court has not granted the relief of specific performance of the impugned agreement to the plaintiff and has rather granted relief of recovery of the due amount of Rs.3,25,000/- with interest at very moderate rate of 6% per annum only. Consequently, judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court do not warrant interference in second appeal. Finding recorded by the lower appellate Court to the aforesaid extent in favour of the plaintiff-respondent is fully justified by the evidence on record and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently
