against the evidence available on file. In fact, both the courts below have failed to appreciate in right prospective the admission suffered by plaintiff�respondent No.1 as his witness. Kamal Kant, PW�1 during cross�examination has admitted in clear terms that he is running commission agent shop under the name and style of �������������� ������� � and both the witnesses on the agreement to sell are also engaged in the same business. Appellants�defendants used to visit their shop for selling their agricultural produce and used to lend money to them and during that process he also used to obtain the signatures in the account books. Identical are the statements of Pawan Kumar (PW�2) and Jiwan Kumar (PW�3). Ld. trial court has also failed to appreciate that 'J' Forms issued by respondent�plaintiff dated October 02, 2010 worth �26794/�, September 28, 2000 worth �80,382 Mark B, dated September 27, 2000 for �49,033/� Mark C, dated September 29, 2000 for � 47961/� have been duly proved on record, which is suggestive of the fact that agreement to sell is result of undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation. As such, it has no binding force. Similarly, ld. trial court as well as lower appellate court has also lost sight of the fact that respondent�plaintiff is income tax assessee and he was fully aware as to how the transaction of more than �20,000/� was to be effected while making the payment which is required to be made either by way of cheque, draft or pay order. But in the instant case, he has failed to produce the account books to show that the amount was withdrawn from bank and was paid to the appellants�defendants. Moreover, had there been any intention to
