In the present case the defendant-respondent No.1 has specifically denied ever having received the earnest money. There is not an iota of evidence on the record to show that the plaintiff-appellant had the funds to make the said payment of Rs.14,77,000/- as alleged. Though an argument was raised by the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that some property had been sold and it is from the proceeds of the said sale that the payment was made, however, there is no evidence except for the bald statement of the plaintiff-appellant. It has further come in evidence that on the day the agreement to sell was entered in the register of the stamp vendor Sunil Gupta, who stepped into the witness box as PW4, yet another entry at serial No.794 was made qua another agreement to sell qua which payment of Rs.12,80,000/- was shown to have been paid to Sunil by the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff-appellant, therefore, would have on the date of the agreement to sell i.e. 21.11.2006 allegedly paid Rs.14,77,000/to the defendant-respondents and Rs.12,80,000/- to another vendor. No evidence has come on the record to show that the plaintiff-appellant had the source to pay the said huge amounts. Further still, it does not stand to reason as to why a person would enter into an agreement to sell on 21.11.2006, pay an amount of Rs.14,77,000/- and for the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- only, fix the target date for 25.10.2009 i.e. after almost three years. The counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to convince this Court or point to any evidence on the record regarding
