1. This appeal is directed against impugned judgment and decree dated 30/01/2008 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Mahasamund, District-Mahasamund in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2006, by which, the appellant/plaintiff's appeal has been dismissed.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit praying for decree of Specific Performance of Contract on the pleadings inter alia that defendant No. 1-Sardar Vikkar Singh was in need of money and therefore, in order to generate fund, he agreed to sell the property in dispute to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 10,51,000/- and an advance of Rs. 51,000/- was also paid on 04/08/2005. According to the plaintiff, an agreement was executed on 04/08/2005 which was signed by defendant No. 1-Vikkar Singh containing recital that he would be selling the property to the plaintiff for Rs. 10,51,000/- as agreed to between the parties. Further pleadings were that under the agreement, the defendant was required to get the property in dispute duly measured and marked which was not completed despite repeated request made by the plaintiff. When the defendant failed to perform the part of contract and neither got the land measured nor came forward to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance amount, notice was issued to the defendant through the lawyer. In reply to the notice, the defendant denied having executed any agreement to sell the property by stating that whatever amount was received, was only towards loan borrowed by him and he never executed any such agreement. Therefore, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the suit for reliefs as stated therein.

3. The case of the defendants in their written statement was that the defendant No. 1 was in need of money. He, therefore, contacted Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi (husband of the plaintiff). Though, Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi agreed to advance loan of Rs. 50,000/-, he gave Rs. 25,000/- only and in order to secure repayment of loan, signatures of defendant No. 1 were obtained on blank stamp papers. He never intended to sell his property to the plaintiff and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed as many as five issues. Learned Trial Court framed an issue as to whether there was an agreement to sell the property in dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant and whether defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 had executed the agreement dated 04/08/2005 taking advance of Rs. 51,000/-. Learned Trial Court also framed an issue as to whether the agreement dated 04/08/2005 was a forged one.

5. Learned Trial Court held that the circumstances in which the so called agreement dated 04/08/2005 (Ex. P/2) is said to have been executed, renders it highly suspicious and it appears to be only a security towards repayment of loan amount. The suit was, therefore, dismissed.

6. Assailing correctness and validity of impugned judgment and decree, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Trial Court, on untenable grounds, even after having held the agreement executed, proceeded to dismiss the suit. He contends that the learned Trial Court committed an error of law in holding that as there was no specific pleading in the plaint that Shyamlal scribed the agreement dated 04/08/2005 and he was one of the witnesses, his evidence was liable to be disbelieved because there is no such requirement of pleading. It is next submitted that as far as the agreement (Ex. P/2) is concerned, execution has been duly proved from the evidence of plaintiff witness-Motiram Yadav (PW2) and further, defendant No. 1 has admitted having signed the said document. Therefore, once execution of agreement is proved, the burden was heavy on the defendant to prove otherwise. The defendant No. 1 had the authority from his wife (defendant No. 2), as deposed by her in her evidence, to deal with the property. Therefore, the defence that defendant No. 1 signed on a blank piece of paper is highly improbable a