JUDGMENT :

The defendant before the trial Court has come up with this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. seeking to set aside the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Court and to dismiss O.S.No.284 of 2002.

2. The respondent herein was plaintiff, who was successful in both the Courts below.

3. O.S.No.284 of 2002 was before learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli and it was for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 18.10.2000, whereunder this appellant allegedly agreed to sell the plaint schedule immovable property, which was Ac.1.00 cents of agricultural land situated in Dodleru Gram Panchayat area of Krosuru Sub-Registration of Guntur District for a valuable consideration of Rs.40,000/-. The plaint alleges that the plaintiff paid Rs.36,000/-and was to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,000/-and was demanding the defendant to receive the same and execute the registered sale deed, but the defendant was dodging and thereafter, despite notice sent by the plaintiff, there was no response and that necessitated the suit.

4. The defendant put in appearance through her learned counsel and filed a written statement denying every averment in the suit. It is further stated that the agreement for sale alleged against her is a forged document and she never thought of selling any property and never received any money. It is further stated that the plaintiff is a well known litigant and was in the habit of creating fake documents. That the agreement for sale, being unregistered, cannot be looked into. This defendant issued appropriate reply notice. Subsequently, the plaintiff with a view to harass her filed a criminal case in C.C.No.127 of 2002 and the same is pending before learned Additional Munsif Magistrate Court, Sattenapalli. The plaintiff has no cause of action. With these averments, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. The above referred pleadings would indicate that there was no contention from the defendant about any other financial transactions between the parties or between the defendant and other relations of the plaintiff. It would further show that the defendant had not pleaded any illiteracy on her part. One may also notice that one of the contentions in the plaint is about defendant handing over her title deed over the property to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the alleged agreement for sale. While the written statement traversing that and puts in a denial, the written statement is conspicuously silent as to how the alleged title deed went from the hands of the defendant to the hands of the plaintiff.

6. A reference to pleadings on both sides would indicate that the plaintiff asserted an agreement for sale and defendant denied the fact and termed it as a forged document. Therefore, burden was on the plaintiff to prove the case. As per the written statement, an allegation was made against the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a chronic litigant and is in the habit of creating fake documents. These facts being asserted by the defendant were to be proved by the defendant. It is in the context of above facts and circumstances, learned trial Court settled the following issues for trial:

“1. Whether the agreement of sale dt. 18.10.2001 is a forged one?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract on the foot of agreement of sale dt. 18.10.2000 as prayed for?

3. To what relief?”

7. At the trial, the plaintiff testified as PW.1 and the scribe for agreement of sale was examined as PW.2 and one out of four attestors deposed as PW.3. The agreement for sale, which was in dispute, was marked as Ex.A.1. The registered gift deed dated 13.08.1991, which stood in the name of the defendant, which conferred title on the defendant which title she intended to part with under Ex.A.1 was produced by the plaintiff and was marked as Ex.A.2. An office copy of the notice that was sent by the plaintiff was Ex.A.3 and a postal acknowledgment indica