The burden of proving the execution of a document rests on the party asserting its existence. In this case, the plaintiff failed to discharge this burden, and the Court found the plaintiff's case to be unbelievable and the terms of the agreement improbable.

JUDGMENT

D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

A. The Suit:

1. The plaintiff namely P.P.Sakthivel filed the suit in O.S.No.255 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Erode, praying for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 28.01.2008, directing the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.19,22,900/- and to execute a sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner dealing with the suit schedule property or alienating it to the third parties.

B. The Case of the Plaintiff :

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property, being their self-acquired property, having purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 08.08.1972 bearing Document No.1129 of 1972. The defendants offered to sell the property to the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to purchase it for a total sale consideration of Rs.74,22,900/- by entering into an unregistered sale agreement on 28.01.2008. The defendants received an advance amount of Rs.15 lakhs. As per the agreement, the transaction has to be completed within a period of 90 days i.e., on or before 28.04.2008. But, however, at the end of the 90 days, the defendants received a further sum of Rs.40 lakhs on 27.04.2008 and extended the time limit for completing the transaction by two years and three months. Accordingly, when the plaintiff was ready to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.19,22,900/-, the defendants evaded executing the sale deed. The plaintiff, therefore, issued a legal notice on 20.04.2010, but, however, the defendants evaded the said notice by returning the same as 'left'. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a telegram on 24.07.2010, which was received by the defendants, but, however, they did not come forward to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed, hence the suit.

C. The Case of the Defendant:

3. The first defendant filed a written statement by which, it was the clear and categorical case of the defendants that the entire sale agreement is a concocted and forged document. According to the defendants, no such agreement ever took place and they did not receive any advance amount. Both the sale agreement dated 28.01.2008 and the subsequent endorsement dated 27.04.2008 are absolutely false, forged and concocted. As a matter of fact the suit property is mortgaged with a Bank and the proceedings are pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. By somehow getting a photocopy of the document, the plaintiff has concocted the suit sale agreement. The second defendant stood exparte. Pending the suit, the first defendant died and their legal heirs were impleaded as Defendants 3 to 5, who again filed a written statement on the same lines as that of the first defendant.

D. The Trial & Findings:

4. On the basis of the above pleadings four issues were framed, which were re-casted by the Trial Court as three, which are as follows:-

i) Whether the defendants executed the sale agreement?

ii)Whether the contention of the defendants that the sale agreement is forged, is correct? Whether the contention that the sale agreement and the endorsement are forged by the plaintiff is correct?

iii) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to execute the contract and whether he is entitled for the relief of specific performance? What other relief?

5. On the above issues the parties let in evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. One Chennimalai, attesting witness to the sale agreement was examined as P.W.2. One Periyasamy, who was a witness to the endorsement made in the sale agreement, was examined as P.W.3. One Shanmugasundaram, the scribe who made the sale agreement ready, was examined as P.W.4. On behalf of the plaintiff, the suit agreement was marked as Ex.A1; the endorsement made for extending the time was marked as Ex.A2; the pre-suit notice issued by the plaintiff was marked as Ex.A3; the re