JUDGMENT

1. Since this appeal was admitted on 10.04.2001 without formulating substantial questions of law, I formulate the following substantial questions of law in this appeal: 1. Whether the First Appellate Court has misconstrued and misunderstood the evidence of PW1 in order to disbelieve Ext.A1 agreement?

2. Whether there is perversity in the findings of the first appellate court in interfering the judgment of the Trial Court?

2. The plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.15,700/- with interest @ 6% per annum on the claim that Rs.14,750/- paid by him as per Ext.A1 agreement for sale executed with the defendant and the defendant is liable to refund the said amount with interest.

3. The defendant denied the execution of Ext.A1 and contended that the plaintiff obtained the signed blank papers from the defendant under coercion while the father of the defendant was in hospital.

4. The Trial Court found that Ext.A1 was executed by the defendant and accordingly granted a decree for realisation of money of Rs.14,806/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the suit till realisation with proportionate cost from the defendant and his assets.

5. The defendant filed Appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit holding that Ext.A1 document is not executed by the defendant and that it is only a fabricated one after getting signatures of the defendant as claimed by the defendant.

6. I heard Sri. G. Keerthivas, the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no appearance for the respondent.

7. The learned counsel invited my attention to the Written Statement as well as the evidence of PW1 and contended that the claim of the defendant is that Ext.A1 is not executed on the blank signed documents obtained by the plaintiff from him. The Trial Court was constrained to obtain Ext.C1 Report from the Fingerprint Expert since the defendant denied the signatures in Ext.A1. Though Ext.A2 notice was sent to the defendant and he received the same, he did not send any reply to Ext.A2 denying the claim from the plaintiff. The defendant did not file any objection to Ext.C1 report of the Fingerprint Expert. The First Appellate Court misconstrued the evidence of PW1 and entered a finding that there is contradictions in the evidence of PW1. The evidence of PW1, when read as a whole, is to the effect that PW1 paid the amount for and on behalf of the plaintiff and the property was agreed to be purchased for and on behalf of the plaintiff.

8. The Trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff after going through the oral and documentary evidences. The First Appellate Court mainly relied on the evidence of PW1 to disbelieve the execution of Ext.A1.

9. On going through the Written Statement of the defendant, the specific case of the defendant is that he has no transaction with the plaintiff and the plaintiff obtained blank signed papers from the defendant from hospital while his father was in hospital. He has specifically stated that he believes that the plaintiff has filed the suit using the blank signed papers obtained by him. But, when he examined as PW1, he deposed that the signatures in Ext.A1 do not belong to him. Since the execution of Ext.A1 agreement is denied by the defendant, the Trial Court sent Ext.A1 to the Fingerprint Expert for expert evidence and obtained Exts.C1 & C2 Reports from the Fingerprint Expert. Ext.C1 suggested that the signature and thump impression in Ext.A1 are that of the defendant. He did not raise any objection to Ext.C1 report of the Fingerprint Expert. Even though the signatures in Ext.A1 belonged to the defendant while he was examined he was plainly denied it. He did not send any reply to Ext.A2 lawyer notice. If he had a valid contention against the claim of the plaintiff, he would have defini