IMPORTANT POINT
When a document is admitted to bear signatures, then burden of proof shifts upon person, alleging execution nugatory.

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As the Courts below duly recapitulated and discussed the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the parties in detail, therefore, there appears to be no necessity to again reproduce and repeat the same in the instant regular second appeal in this context. However, the contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, is that Sanjiv Kumar son of Sube Singh appellant/plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”), filed the suit against Krishan Kumar son of Banarsi Dass (since deceased) defendant, now being represented by his LR Ram Pyari widow of Banarsi Dass (for short “the original defendant”) for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 7.8.2000 (Ex.P2) in respect of the land in dispute.

2. The case set up by the plaintiff, in brief in so far as relevant, was that the original defendant was the owner of the suit land. He entered into an agreement to sell (Ex.P2) in his favour for a total consideration amount of Rs.2,50,000 and received an amount of Rs.1,50,000 as earnest money. The balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000 was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed on 15.9.2000. The parties were stated to have agreed that in case the original defendant fails to perform his part of contract, then, the plaintiff would be entitled to get the sale deed executed/registered through the process of Court of law and in case failure to perform his part of contract is on the part of the plaintiff, then, the earnest money shall be forfeited.

3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the plaintiff that he always remained ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the original defendant has faulted in this respect. The plaintiff was stated to have marked his presence in the office of Sub-Registrar, Assandh, by filing his affidavit on 15.9.2000, but the defendant did not return to get the sale deed executed and registered. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of possession for specific performance of contract against the original defendant, in the manner indicated hereinabove.

4. The original defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement, inter alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, court fee, jurisdiction, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff. He claimed that neither he executed any agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff on 7.8.2000 nor received any earnest money, as alleged by him (plaintiff). The/execution of the indicated agreement was stated to be result of fraud and misrepresentation. He explained that the plaintiff, aged about 20 years, was a student of LLB at Kurukshetra at the relevant time. He has neither the capacity to pay huge amount of Rs.2,50,000 nor he actually paid the earnest money. One Pala Ram alias Dharam Pal and Dharam Singh took and served the original defendant. heavy drinks and they attempted to obtain his thumb impressions on some papers under the influence of liquor. It was alleged that the plaintiff has filed a false suit within a period of six days of the agreement, without giving any registered notice to him. It will not be out of place to mention here that the original defendant has stoutly, denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Controverting the allegations of the written statement and reiterating the pleadings contained in the plaint, the plaintiff filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for proper adjudication of the case:

1. Whether the defendant entered into an agreement for sale of the land dated 7.8.2000 of the land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint for sale consider