The burden of proving forgery is on the party alleging forgery, and in a suit for specific performance of a contract, the defense of forgery need not be considered if there is no specific pleading about forgery.

The instant appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in RCS No. 120 of 2000, which was pending in the Court of Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Ambajogai and also against the judgment and order in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2014, which was pending in the Court of District Judge - 3, Ambajogai.

2. Heard learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

3. The suit was filed by respondent No. 1 - Chandrakant for relief of specific performance of contract of sale of agricultural land against the appellants, which was in respect of portion of three acres land out of survey No. 290, situated at village Chanai. The defendant-Yashwant, who was alive on the date of the suit, was a brother of father of the plaintiff.

4. It is case of the plaintiff that, the defendant, under agreement dt. 26th February, 1997, had agreed to sale the suit property to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. It is contended that, on the date of the agreement, the amount of Rs. 59,000/- was given by plaintiff to defendant and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. It is contended that, the sale deed was to be executed prior to 30th June, 1999 by the defendant under the agreement.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that, after the date of agreement, he requested the defendant many a times to execute the sale deed but, the defendant avoided to do so under one or the other pretext. It is contended that, when the possession of the suit land was given to plaintiff under agreement of sale, the defendant and his wife made false contentions and filed suit for injunction against him in respect of the suit land, bearing No. 150 of 1999. On the date of the present suit, the said suit of injunction was pending. It is contended that, as the plaintiff was in possession of the land, entry in revenue record was made accordingly but dispute was created by defendant in respect of the entry also. It is contended that, when defendant flatly refused to execute the sale deed on 14th June, 2000 and when defendant and his family members tried to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and they arranged to file a chapter case against the plaintiff, the plaintiff realized that there was no other alternative but to file the suit for specific performance of contract. The relief of permanent injunction was also claimed. It is the case of the plaintiff that, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

6. The defendant – Yeshwant contested the matter by filing written statement. He denied that, he had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and the written agreement was made on 26th February, 1997. The defendant denied that the possession of the land is with plaintiff. The defendant, however, admitted that the plaintiff had asked him to execute the sale deed and notice to that effect was also sent.

7. It is the case of the defendant that, father of the plaintiff was Karta of joint Hindu family, of which defendant was a member. It is contended that, Gut No. 272 was purchased by defendant from his own income. He contended that, he is suffering from paralysis and is bedridden. He contended that, he used to give his thumb impressions on the papers which the father of plaintiff used to bring to him as they had the joint Hindu family. He contended that, as he was bedridden, one Shaikh Farid was cultivating the suit land for him. He contended that, when the plaintiff attempted to interfere in the possession of the defendant over the suit land, a report was given to the police and chapter case was filed against the plaintiff. He admitted that, he had filed suit for injunction against the plaintiff in respect of the same land. He contended that, by joining hands with revenue authority, the plaintiff had managed to get his name entered in the revenue record. It is the case of the defendant that, as he is demanding his share in the joint family property, only in order