The burden of proof for alleging forgery lies with the defendants, and mere evasive denials are insufficient to counter the plaintiff's claims.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenging the decree and judgment of the trial Court decreeing the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,39,534/- the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful defendant.

2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.

3. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,39,534/-. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had entered into agreement with the plaintiff on 29.01.2018 to sell the property before the month of Chithirai 2018 for a total sale consideration of Rs.60,91,200/- contending that the property has been purchased by the first defendant. The defendants represented that the original document is with the bank and requested some time to release the document. Hence, another agreement has been entered on 11.05.2018 agreeing to sell the property within three months.However, the defendants have not paid the bank loan and redeemed the original document. Therefore, once again, an agreement was entered between the parties on 16.08.2018 and an advance of Rs.10,00,000/- has also been paid. It is agreed that the balance amount will be paid within a period of three months from the date of the agreement. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, the defendants have not executed the sale deed and not paid the bank loan. The plaintiff issued a legal notice in this regard on 31.10.2018 calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration. However, the defendants have not given any reply. On enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants have monetarily committed to so many persons. Therefore, the plaintiff felt that it is not advisable to purchase the property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of the advance amount paid by him.

4. It is the case of the defendants in the written statement that admitting that the suit property belongs to them, it is the stand of the defendants that they have no necessity to sell the property for a meager price of Rs.60,91,200/-. According to them, the previous agreements have not been filed in the suit. It is their further contention that the second defendant has not executed any sale agreement. Admitting that they had received the legal notice, it is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff expressed apology and that the notice has been issued due to inducement of his friends, therefore, they have not sent any reply. Hence, opposed the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial Court. :

1. Whether the suit sale agreement is invalid in the eye of law and the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief under the unregistered sale agreement?

2. Whether the sale agreement is a forged one and the signature of the defendants are created by the plaintiff with the help of friends in a forged manner?

3. Is it correct to state that the defendants agreed to sell the suit property for sale consideration of Rs.60,91,200/- and after getting advance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- they executed the sale agreement?

4. Whether the reason stated by the plaintiff is correct for not purchasing the property after payment of balance sale consideration?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed by him?

6. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and Ex.A.1 to A6 have been marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.3 have been examined and no document has been filed on the side of the defendants. The trial Court, considering the entire