V. Chitambaresh, J.—The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale and in the alternative for return of the amount paid as advance is the appellant. The plaint claim is rested on Ext.A1 agreement for sale allegedly entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants in regard to 4 items of property totalling to 94.80 cents. The plaintiff asserted that a sum of Rs. 5,75,000/- was paid as advance to the defendants out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/- on the date of agreement itself. It is the further case that Ext.A2 series lawyer notices issued by the plaintiff were not responded to by the defendants and hence the suit for the reliefs.

2. The defendants totally denied having any transaction with the plaintiff as alleged and conceded only the receipt of a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as loan from one Mr.V.L.Ittiachen. The said Ittiachen was the father of the Managing Director of the plaintiff which is a company engaged in construction of buildings and incorporated at Madras. It is the case of the defendants that blank signed papers obtained by the said Ittiachen at the time of giving the loan would have been fabricated as Ext.A1 agreement. The defendants did not for a moment admit the signatures found in Ext.A1 agreement and also emphatically denied the receipt of Rs. 5,75,000/- as advance.

3. The brother of the Managing Director of the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and a witness to Ext.A1 agreement was examined as PW.2 while the first defendant was examined as DW.1. The trial court though upheld the due execution of Ext.A1 agreement found that there was discrepancy as regards the mode of payment of consideration. The trial court hence declined specific performance and granted a decree for return of Rs. 5,75,000/- with interest in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. The decree is challenged by the defendants in this Appeal Suit wherein the plaintiff has filed a memorandum of cross objections reiterating specific performance. We heard Mr. K. Ramachandran, Advocate on behalf of the appellants/defendants and Mr.P.R. Venkitesh, Advocate on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff.

4. Ext.A1 agreement for sale relied on does not inspire confidence in this Court and a mere look at it throws suspicion and the following infirmities are demonstrably evident:

(i) There is an artificial gap in between the lines in the body of the agreement on the first page.

(ii) The sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- recited as the total sale consideration has been interpolated in the body of the agreement.

(iii) The signature of the third defendant put after her name varies from page to page in the agreement.

(iv) The date and the amount of the two cheques passed on towards advance amount are written in a different ink.

(v) There is a wide gap between the signatures of the executants and that of the witnesses in the agreement.

5. The plaintiff is a company engaged in the construction activity and audited accounts should be there evidencing the advance of a huge amount of Rs. 5,75,000/- to the defendants. None of the documents are forthcoming except that Ext.A1 agreement merely mentions two cheques for Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.75,000/- totalling to Rs.5,75,000/-. No documents from the Bank have been summoned or any official examined to prove the issue of the aforesaid cheques or the encashment of the same by the defendants. Even this case is given a go by in evidence when the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff depose about the payment of advance of Rs.5,75,000/- in cash. All that has been produced is Ext.A5 savings Pass Book of the Bank which reflects that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was withdrawn from the personal account of the Managing Director. It is difficult to believe that the amount so withdrawn at 9.30 am. at Madras was paid to the defendants at 9.30 pm. at Thrissur on the same day. It is significant to note that Ext.A2 series of lawyer notices demand money on behalf of the Managing Director personally an