JUDGMENT :

K. SUJANA, J.

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2003 passed in O.S.No.196 of 1999 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, the present appeal suit is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale of a house bearing No.5-11-522/1 at Naimnagar, Hanamkonda, or alternatively, return of the sale consideration of Rs.2,37,500/- with interest. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, known to him since 1996, agreed to sell the house to clear debts, received the full sale price over time, and signed a sale agreement dated 15.03.1998 after delivering possession. Despite assurances, the defendant allegedly avoided executing a registered sale deed, prompting the plaintiff to issue a legal notice. In contrast, the defendant contended that he never agreed to sell the house, nor received any sale consideration. Instead, he alleged that under pressure from the plaintiff and others (who were creditors of a finance company where the defendant worked), he was forced to sign blank stamp papers and white papers, which were later misused to fabricate the alleged sale agreement. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff was misusing the signed papers to claim ownership and that no actual transaction of sale ever took place.

3. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed four issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.A1 to A10 are marked. DWs.1 to 4 are examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendants.

4. After examining the evidence, the trial Court, vide order dated 10.07.2003, dismissed the suit hold that several inconsistencies and deficiencies in the plaintiff’s case. It was noted that no receipts or proof of payment were produced, and it was considered improbable that such a large amount was paid in cash without documentation. The evidence also revealed that signatures on the alleged agreement were obtained under coercion related to disputes with the finance company, corroborated by witnesses who supported the defendant’s version. The trial Court further observed that corrections made in the sale agreement document (Ex.A1) appeared suspicious. Consequently, the trial Court held that the sale agreement was not genuine, that no sale consideration was paid, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance or return of the amount. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal suit is filed.

5. Heard Sri Tangeda Dayananda Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Smt. N. Kamala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment and decree of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence, and probabilities of the case. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and committed a grave error in placing the initial burden of proof on the appellant instead of the respondent, who alleged coercion and fabrication of the document Ex.A1. He argued that once execution and signature on Ex.A1 were admitted by the respondent, the burden shifted onto the respondent to establish that the document was obtained under coercion, as per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Despite alleging illegal detention and manipulation of signatures, the respondent admittedly did not lodge any police complaint or issue any notice denying Ex.A1 immediately, which, according to the appellant, severely undermines the respondent's defense.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court drew unwarranted presumptions against the appellant regarding non-production of receipts for the payment of sale consideration, overlooking the fact that the respondent never seriously disputed the possession and payment arrangements post-Ex.A1. He further contended that even after the alleged coe