In specific performance cases, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish contract terms and signatures' validity, contradicting the lower courts' misplacement of this burden onto the defendant.

JUDGMENT :

J.M.KHAZI, J.

This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court dismissing the regular appeal filed by him and allowing the Regular Appeal filed by the plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court, partly decreeing the suit of plaintiff, ordering refund of earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum, though her suit for specific performance came to be dismissed. By allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court has decreed the suit in entirety and ordered for specific performance of contract.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

3. Plaintiff is no other than sister-in-law of defendant i.e, the late husband of plaintiff and defendant are real brothers. Defendant is the absolute owner of suit schedule property consisting of a shop premises measuring 6×18 ft, situated in the ground floor. The adjoining shop premises of same dimension situated on the western side of suit property belongs to the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of contract dated 26.06.2008 for sale of suit schedule property. She contended that defendant who was running a fancy store in suit property, for his legal necessity offered to sell the same to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs and executed sale agreement dated 26.06.2008 by receiving advance of Rs.1 lakh. Since tenant was there in the suit property for a period of three years, defendant offered execute of regular sale deed after the expiry of three years, by receiving balance sale consideration. It is alleged that after expiry of three years, when plaintiff approached defendant with a request to receive the balance consideration and execute the sale deed, he refused and therefore without any alternative suit is filed.

4. Defendant admit the relationship between him and the plaintiff and also the fact that the shop premises situated on the western side of suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff. However, he has denied of having offered to sell suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs to the plaintiff and executed sale agreement dated 26.06.2008 by receiving advance of Rs.1 lakh. He has also denied that he promised to receive balance consideration of Rs.2 lakhs after expiry of three years and execute a sale deed. He has alleged that the sale agreement in question is concocted by the plaintiff and his brother Vittal, who is one of the attesting witness to the alleged sale agreement. Defendant has made specific allegations that the said Vittal is also instrumental in creating a gift deed, including property belonging to defendant and being hand in glove with the plaintiff he has created the suit documents by forging his signatures. He never had any legal necessity to alienate suit schedule property. He has alleged that at the relevant point of time, the market value of such property was Rs.15 lakhs.

5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed n