Proof of signature is prima facie proof of execution, and an admission that a document bears a man's signature is not necessarily an admission of execution. However, where there is no question of any execution at all, the burden of satisfying the court that the signatures were inserted upon a blank piece of paper squarely rests on the party asserting it.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother Satyanarayana Rao, J. , which was pronounced by him as a Judge of the Madras high Court. The appeal has been transferred to this Court under Section 38 of the Andhra State Act. By his judgment, the learned Judge confirmed the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tenali in favour of the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 42 of 1947 on the file of the latter. The 1st defendant in that suit was the appellant before the learned Judge and he is also the appellant before us. There were three plaintiffs in the suit, plaintiffs 2 and 3 being alleged to be the tenants of the 1st plaintiff in respect of the land which is the subject- matter of the dispute between the parties. The 1st plaintiff claimed to have purchased the land from the 1st defendant under a sale deed dated 13-7-1939 in pursuance of an agreement dated 10th of February that year. The sale deed and the agreement have been marked in the suit as Exs. A-1 and A-2 respectively. The 1st plaintiff alleged in the plaint that he was put in possession of the land and that till 1946, it "was being cultivated with the help of the cattle and farm-servants belonging to the joint family of himself and his elder brother. " It was further stated therein that "as 1st plaintiff s brother was of late mostly staying at Tenali, the plaintiff was obliged to lease out the suit land to plaintiffs 2 and 3 for 5 years" under a registered lease deed dated 10-5-1946 registered on 9-8-1946 and marked as Ex. A-10. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 cultivated the suit land, the plaint proceeded to say, that year; but as there were disputes between the 1st plaintiff and his wife and as the 1st defendant who was related to her along with other relations of hers wanted "to extract by force" something more than the sum of Rs. 15,000/- which the 1st plaintiff had settled to pay her by way of maintenance, the defendants invaded the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs, and with a view to carry away the. crops raised by the plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the suit land, obstructed them in their field operations. Then there was a petition filed by the plaintiffs under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code followed by a petition under Section 145 of the same Code. The Deputy Magistrate, Tenali decided the question of possession in favour of the 1st defendant. The crop on the land, pending those proceedings, was auctioned under orders of the Deputy magistrate and the sale proceeds amounting to Rs. 1,310/- were deposited with the Magistrate. The suit was, therefore, filed for setting aside the order of the Deputy Magistrate dated 31-5-1947 and for recovery of possession of the land as well as the sum of Rs, 1,310/- the profits of the year 1946 so deposited. The defendants 2 to 5 are said to be close relations of the 1st plaintiff s wife. The 1st defendant was the only contesting defendant and his case is best set out in his Qwn words as stated in his written statement:" This defendant owns land adjoining that which previously belonged to his sister-in-law one Pavuluri Bullamrna. She offered to sell her land to this defendant at a time when the disputes between him and his brother were still left undecided. This defendant feeling apprehensive that in case he were to buy the said property in his name without anything more, his brother might lay claim to a share therein, treating it as a purchase from the joint family funds, took counsel with the 1st plaintiff and his brother, who though not closely related to this defendant, were on the most cordial and intimate terms with one another. This defendant was advised that if he should make it appear as though he raised funds for buying land from the said Bullamma by selling his own land, any possible attack by his brother could be easily and effectively met or averted. It was under these circumstances that the contract of sale dated 10-2-1939 and the sale deed dated 13-7-1939 came to be executed in favour