Sankaran, J.

The suit filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of Exhibit A1 agreement for sale of the plaint schedule immovable properties was decreed by the trial court. The defendants challenge the judgment and decree of the trial court.

2. The plaint schedule consists of three items of properties, the total extent of which comes to 55 cents. Two items belong to the first defendant and one item having an extent of 15 cents belongs to the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant is the son of the first defendant. The properties are situated on the side of Vithura - Kallar road in Nedumangad Taluk. There is a house consisting of four bed rooms, sit out, dining room, kitchen and store room, in one of the items. There are coconut trees, other fruit bearing trees and miscellaneous trees in the properties.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants agreed to sell the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.7.5 lakhs and Exhibit A1 agreement for sale was executed by the defendants on 8-3-2004. An advance of Rs.One lakh was paid on that day. The period fixed in the agreement to complete the transaction was two months. In spite of notice, the defendants did not execute the sale deed. The plaintiff was and continues to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement with an alternative prayer for realization of the advance amount with interest.

4. The defendants contended that they did not agree to sell the properties to the plaintiff nor did they execute Exhibit A1 agreement. They contended that they had taken a loan from the Vithura branch of the Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank and for re-paying the loan amount, they had borrowed Rs.75,000/- from the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who is a money lender, got the signatures of the defendants in a blank stamp paper and three plain papers. In the peculiar circumstances, the defendants signed the papers and borrowed the amount. Exhibit A1 was fabricated using the signed blank papers. The defendants are residing in the house in the property. The properties would fetch a value of Rs.35,000/- per cent of land and the total market value of the property would be Rs.25 lakhs. In the reply notice itself, the defendants had expressed their willingness to repay Rs.75,000/- with interest. It was contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to get a decree for specific performance.

5. Before the trial court, the plaintiff gave evidence as PW.1. The scribe of Exhibit A1 was examined as P.W.2 and the land broker who was instrumental to the agreement was examined as P.W.3. On the side of the defendants, the 2nd defendants was examined as D.W.1. He expressed his willingness to pay Rs. One lakh with interest to the plaintiff.

6. The trial court found that Exhibit A1 was executed by the defendants and that the agreement is a genuine one. The contention of the defendants that the case is one where the discretion is to be exercised by the court not to decree specific performance, was negatived on the ground that the defendants are not entitled to seek equity they having denied the execution of the agreement. It was held that in such a case, discretion could not be exercised in favour of the defendants.

7. The points arising for consideration are:

(1) Whether Exhibit A1 agreement is genuine?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for specific performance?

8. Point No.1: To prove the execution of Exhibit A1 agreement, P.Ws 2 and 3 were examined on the side of the plaintiff. P.W.2 is a document writer and he is the scribe of Exhibit A1. The evidence of P.W.2 was believed by the trial court. P.W.2 saw the executants signing the document and he is also a signatory. There is nothing to disbelieve the version of P.W.2. P.W.3 is a broker and he brought the buyer for the purchase of the properties. He also stated that Ext.A1 was written by P.W.2 and the defendants put their