Merely admitting to a signature on a sale agreement does not establish execution; the burden of proof lies with the propounder of the document to confirm its genuineness.

JUDGMENT :

V SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri. Suyog Herale, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the applellant challenging the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No.25/1993 seeking to enforce the agreement to sell said to have been executed by the respondent on 06.03.1991 in respect of landed property which is described as under (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'):

1. Remaining extent in Sy.No.117, measuring 2.00 acres (including kharab)

2. Land bearing Sy.No.92 measuring 1.20 acres (The kharab totally 3.00 acres excluding kharab)

Both dry situated at Belagumba Vilalge, Tumkur Tq, having the following common boundary:

-

East by : Land of Doddahutchappa

West by : Sy.No.93,

North by : Tumkur-Belagunba Road and 2.00 acres sold to plaintiff

South by : Govt.Land.

3. Plaintiff challenged the validity of the said dismissal of the suit in appeal in R.A.No.83/2013. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the factual aspects on the point of law, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff and confirmed the dismissal of the suit.

4. Being aggrieved by same, present second appeal is filed factual. Factual matrix which are utmost necessary for disposal of the president appeal are as under:

Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of the schedule property. It is his case that on 06.03.1991, defendant said to have executed an agreement to sell the suit property at Rs.20,000/- per acre and received sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance sale consideration.

-

5. It is also his case that pursuant to the agreement to sell, plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property as part performance of the contract but failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated demands and as such the legal notice came to be issued on 28.01.1993.

6. Despite the issuance of legal notice, there was no compliance and as such suit came to be filed seeking specific enforcement of the agreement to sell.

7. Pursuant to the suit, defendant entered appearance and filed detail written statement denying the very agreement itself. Defendant also denied the receipt of advanced sale consideration in sum of Rs.10,000/- and also denied the plaintiff being put into the possession of the suit property as part performance of the contract.

-

8. Defendant specifically denied the endorsement dated 10.04.1991 on the sale agreement. Defendant took a specific contention that defendant purchased the land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.117. At that juncture, plaintiff had obtained several signatures on several stamp papers and he concocted the suit agreement by utilizing said signed blank stamp papers and short for dismissal of suit.

9. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, learned Trial Judge raised necessary issues and after hearing the arguments on both sides, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

10. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Court in R.A.No.83/2013.

11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and noting that the agreement is not established by examining the plaintiff and no proper reasons are assigned for non examination of plaintiff and PW1 being the power of attorney holder of the original plaintiff was not able to depose before the Court as to the genuineness and execution of the suit agreement, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff.

-

12. Being further aggrieved by same, present appeal is filed on following grounds:

The impugned Judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is a