Admitted signatures on a document create a strong presumption of valid execution. A plea of fraud or forgery requires specific material particulars and evidence; bald assertions, especially those factually inconsistent with the document's timeline, are insufficient to rebut the presumption of execution.

JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter to be referred as “RSA”) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2000 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent-plaintiff was accepted. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court dated 20.02.1998, which had initially dismissed the suit, was set aside, and the suit for recovery was decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

2. The respondent–plaintiff instituted the present suit for recovery of Rs. 80,000/- on the basis of an Agreement to Sell dated 24.07.1993 (Ex. P2), alleging that the appellant–defendant agreed to sell land measuring 9 kanals 12 marlas for a total consideration of Rs. 80,000/- out of which Rs. 66,000/- was paid as earnest money. The sale deed was stipulated to be executed on 25.07.1994. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, as evidenced by his appearance before the Sub-Registrar on the stipulated date (Ex. P1). However, as the defendant allegedly lacked clear title to the entire suit land and failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff sought refund of the earnest money along with 14,000/- as damages.

3. The defendant, upon service of notice, contested the suit by filing a detailed written statement raising preliminary objections as to maintainability. On merits, the execution of the agreement and receipt of earnest money were specifically denied. It was pleaded that the defendant, an agriculturist, had been transacting through the plaintiff’s commission agency for over a decade and, in the course of such dealings, his signatures were obtained on blank papers as per prevailing trade practice. It was further alleged that the plaintiff misused such blank signed papers to fabricate a forged agreement after cessation of business relations, as an act of retaliation.

3.1 Upon consideration of the pleadings and rival submissions, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 28.05.1997 for adjudication.

1. Whether the defendant entered into an agreement to sell dated 24.07.1993 in respect of land measuring 9 kanals 12 marlas and received a sum of Rs.66,000/- as earnest money, although he was not the owner of the said land, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the alleged agreement to sell dated 24.07.1993 is a fabricated, false and forged document, as alleged? If so, its effect? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? If so, its effect? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit amount, as alleged? OPP

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and to what amount? OPP

7. Relief.

4. Both parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. Upon conclusion of the trial and after hearing learned counsel for both sides, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff/appellant preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, which was allowed.

5. Assailing the findings of the learned First Appellate Court, the appellant/respondent has instituted the present appeal. Upon admission, notice was duly issued, and the respondents entered appearance through counsel and contested the appeal. The records of the courts below are available on DMS for perusal and proper adjudication.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant– defenda