The recitals in an agreement are not conclusive proof of the truth of the facts stated therein and the court may require further proof of such facts, especially when the genuineness of the agreement is in question.

RAMAPRASADA RAO, J. :- The second to the fourth defendants in O. S. No. 246 of 1967 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, are the appellants. One Veerappa Pillai, whose brother's son is the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement of sale markad as Ex. A-1 in this case. The plaintiff's case is that during 1943 to 1956 in consideration of the confidence, affection and regard which he had to his uncle, Veerappa Pillai, he deposited with him various sums of money to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. In fact, such deposits were made from his savings while he was exercising a calling of his own or a profession of his own and it was at the instance and persuasion of Veerappa Pillai that these deposits were made during the aforesaid years. The plaintiff claims that between 1943 and 1946 he was a bus conductor and a checking inspector and was saving considerable sums from his salary; during 1950 and 1953, he was a sugarcane contractor supplying sugarcane to mills and earning large profits; and during 1954 to 1956, he was running a provision shop at Panjappatti and earned considerable amounts thereon. His further case is that at the behest of his uncle he was sending considerable sums which he was saving during the years 1943 to 1956 to this uncle and these amounts came up to Rs 25.000/- by the year 1964. Referring to circumstantial evidence and the letters written by Veerappa Pillai when he was alive, whereunder the plaintiff was asked to send certain amount for the purpose of enabling him to buy some jewels to his wife when he marries or for the purpose of purchasing lands after considerable sums are accrued, the plaintiff would say that on a final demand made by him and at the intervention of the third defendant both Veerappa Pillai and the third defendant, who is son, executed the agreement, Ex. A-1, whereby they obliged themselves to sell their lands which are the suit property for a sum and consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. The plaintiff says that though the agreement was written up in the normal course, it became necessary for him to issue the suit notice for the performance of the obligations of the executants of the agreement because Veerappa Pillai by then died. He, therefore, issued the suit notice. Ex. A-27, calling upon the defendants (the first and the second defendants are the widows of Veerappa Pillai and the third and the fourth defendants are his son and daughter respectively). The first defendant widow replied in Ex. A-28 denying the receipt of any such amount by her husband. Even so, defendants 2 to 4 in a common reply, characterised the agreement as a concoction and pleaded it is not supported by consideration. The plaintiff came to Court on the above allegations and wanted a decree for specific performance of the contract of sale, Ex. A-1 and expressed that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance of Rs. 5,000/- and obtain a sale deed as contracted. The first defendant remained ex parte. The second defendant filed a written statement which is adopted by defendants 3 and 4. As we already stated they denied the capacity of the plaintiff to deposit such large sums of money to Veerappa Pillai when he was alive and put forward the story that in connection with a prospective employment of the third defendant the signature of Veerappa Pillai and the third defendant were taken on blank papers but on stamp papers and that the stamp paper so signed by them for a particular purpose are being misused by the plaintiff after having filled it up to his advantage. They would characterise the agreement as an unenforceable and a concocted one. Their additional plea, which is important in this case, is that the plaintiff did not have the requisite capacity to deposit such sums with Veerappa Pillai when he was alive and the various versions given by the plaintiff in the plaint regarding the mode and the manner by which he deposited the amounts