The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the agreement to sell, and judgments can be set aside if they are found to be fraught with perversity.

This second appeal is focussed by the defendants 1 to 5, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 11.4.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Bhavani, in A.S.No.15 of 2002, confirming the judgment and decree dated 2.3.2001 passed by the Second Additional District Munsif, Bhavani in O.S.No.85 of 1998, which was filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell.

2. Despite notice having been served on the respondents and their names also printed in the cause list, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 4. A summation and summation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

(a) The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.85 of 1998 for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The defendant No.6/R2 herein remained ex-parte. Defendants 1 to 5/the appellants herein filed the written statement and resisted the suit.

(b) Whereupon ssues were framed. The plaintiff on his side examined himself as Ex.P.W.1 along with Ex.P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. The defendants 1 to 5 on their side examined the first defendant as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

(c) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit.

(d) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the defendants 1 to 5 preferred the appeal for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 5. Challenging and impugning the judgement and decree of the appellate Court, defendants 1 to 5 have filed this second appeal on the following grounds, inter alia thus:

(i) The Courts below failed to apply the principle of burden of proof correctly in the facts and circumstances of this case. Assuming wrongly that the burden of proof was on the defendants, the lis was decided by the Courts below.

(ii) Ex.A1-the alleged agreement to sell was disputed by defendants 1 to 5. Whereupon the plaintiff ought to have taken steps to prove it in the way known to law. But the plaintiff failed to do so. Even then, the Courts below held as though the defendants 1 to 5 should have proved that Ex.A1 was a false document.

(iii) Over and above that, by way of adding fuel to the fire, the Courts below commented upon the non-examination of D6/R2 herein and drew virtually adverse inference as against the defendants 1 to 5/the appellants herein. D6 is none but the mother of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendants 1 to 5 pray for setting aside the judgments of both the Courts below and for dismissal of the suit.

6. While admitting the second appeal my learned predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law: "

(i) Have not the Courts below committed an error of law in not holding that burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of Exhibit A1 and not on the defendants.

(ii) Have not the lower appellate Court committed an error of law in holding that the appellants have not proved that the value of the suit property is more in view of the admission made by the plaintiff being the best form of evidence.

(iii) Have not both the Courts below committed an error of law in not giving the finding that the respondents were always ready and willing to require under Sec.16(e) of the Specific Relief Act?

(iv) The lower Court committed an error of law in considering the issues framed by the trial Court while confirming the order of the trial Court."

7. However, the aforesaid substantial questions of law are reframed as under:

"(i) Whether the Courts blow were justified in proceeding on the footing as though the burden of proof is on defendants 1 to 5 to prove the falsity of Ex.A1-the Agreement to Sell?

(ii) Despite the scribe having not signed in the agreement to sell-Ex.A1, whether the Courts below were justified in not adverting t