AHAMAD Vs. GANGADHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs. The suit was one for specific performance of the agreement. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant executed an agreement to sell an item of property scheduled in the plaint for consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. The plaintiffs gave an advance of Rs.5300/-. Ext. A1 is the agreement. It is dated 13-2-1978. The plaintiffs further submit that when the agreement was executed the defendant handed over Exts.A2, A3 and A4. Ext.A2 purchase certificate is dated 23-10-1975 (the title to the property), Exts.A3 and A4 are receipts obtained by the defendant for payment of compensation and interest on the amount of compensation. The time stipulated in the agreement for the performance of the contract was one year from the date of the agreement.

(2.) The defendant said that the signature and the thumb impression in the document Ext. A1 are that of the defendant; but he has not executed the agreement in so far as the signature and the thumb impression were given in that stamp paper when it was a bare barren stamp paper. Further the defendant submitted that he has received a loan of Rs.1000/- from the second plaintiff and as a security for the loan amount he had handed over Exts.A2, A3 and A4. He said that though Ext.A2 shows that the defendant has got title to the property, actually he has no title to the property and the title now stands vested with the mother and that the mother has obtained the purchase certificate Ext.B1 dated

(3.) The court below considered the evidence in the case and came to the conclusion that Ext.A1 is not a genuine document and on the basis of which no relief can be granted to the. plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. The question that has to be considered in this appeal is whether Ext.A1 is a document which can be relied on for granting any relief to the plaintiff. When I say any relief, I mean that even if the plaintiffs are not entitled to specific performance of the agreement whether the plaintiff is entitled to a lesser relief of a decree for the return of the amount given by way of advance. In fact the plaintiff has made an alternative prayer for this relief. The case of the defendant is that the second plaintiff has given a loan of Rs.1000/- to the defendant after receiving Exts.A2, A3 and A4. It was thus after the payment of Rs.1000/- by the second plaintiff, he went to the Ration Shop of the defendant with a blank stamp paper and requested the defendant to put his signature and thumb impression on the blank stamp paper and the defendant obliged the plaintiff by acceding to the request of the plaintiff. Further, after obtaining the signature and thumb impression on the blank stamp paper the plaintiff got the assistance of his scribe, who has been examined in this case as PW-2 and got the document written, which has been produced as the stereobate of this suit. Counsel for the respondent submitted before me that when the execution of the document is denied, it is true, that even if the signature in the document is that of the defendant, if the defendant pleads that the signature was put on a blank paper it amounts to denial of the execution of the document. In that way really this is a case of denial of the execution of the document. And so the counsel submitted that the entire burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the document has been executed by the defendant. It is true that in a case where there is a denial of the execution of the document the plaintiff has got the obligation to discharge the burden of proof. How and in what manner that burden of proof can be discharged is a question depending upon the facts of each case.