The court established that a party admitting signatures but denying contents must prove their claims; failure to testify leads to adverse inferences.

CAV JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.7458/2000, wherein trial Court has proceeded to dismiss the plaintiff's suit.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance based on an agreement to sell dated 18.07.1990. Plaintiff contended that defendant executed an agreement for sale on 18.07.1990 and the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.20,000/-. The defendant agreed to execute sale deed after securing permission from the Government. Plaintiff contended that defendant has received entire sale consideration and handed over possession to the plaintiff pursuant to execution of the suit agreement. Plaintiff further contended that defendant has executed a General Power of Attorney on the same day and based on suit agreement, petitioner's name was mutated in column No.12 of RTC. Plaintiff has alleged that inspite of repeated request, defendant went on postponing the execution of sale deed. Plaintiff further alleged that he has spent substantial amount to level the land. Plaintiff was ultimately compelled to issue legal notice on 28.07.2000. Plaintiff has alleged that defendant issued a reply on 29.08.2000 to which the plaintiff has sent a rejoinder on 15.09.2000. Therefore, the present suit.

4. Defendant, on receipt of summons, tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendant stoutly denied the suit agreement in entirety and disputed the payment of entire sale consideration as alleged in the plaint. Defendant on the contrary claimed that plaintiff has concocted the documents. Defendant, however, admitted his LTM on the suit agreement and contended that plaintiff taking undue advantage of the defendant's illiteracy and his lack of worldly knowledge, has secured LTM on blank stamp papers under the garb of raising loan from the Bank. Defendant therefore alleged that these blank papers are used to create suit agreement and GPA.

5. The Trial Court based on pleadings formulated in all eight issues. Trial Court answered issue No.1 in the negative and held that plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property for Rs.20,000/- and accordingly executed an agreement on 18.07.1990 by receiving entire sale consideration. While answering issue No.3 in the affirmative, trial Court held that defendant has succeeded in substantiating that plaintiff has obtained his thumb impression on the blank stamp paper. Trial Court having answered issue No.1 in the negative and issue No.3 in the affirmative proceeded to dismiss the suit.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff has filed the captioned appeal.

7. Learned Senior Counsel reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memo would vehemently argue and contend that the defendant having disputed the suit agreement and having alleged fraud has not mounted the witness box and no evidence is let in by the defendant. Therefore, he would contend that the findings recorded by the trial Court on issue No.3 is palpably erroneous and suffers from serious perversity. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and Another, (1999) 3 SCC 573 Referring to Section 114(iii)(g), he would contend that defendant having disputed the contents of the suit agreement and GPA has not let in any rebuttal evidence. Defendant has consciously abstained from entering the witness box and therefore, an adverse inference would arise against him in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra.

8. Learned Senior Counsel referring to the pleadings and evidence let in by the plaintiff submits that suit property admittedly is a revenue site. Referring to the recitals in the suit agreeme