In contract disputes, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to substantiate claims; admission of signature requires proper evaluation of context in proving document execution.

JUDGMENT

A portion of the impugned judgment is extracted below for reference:

“Ext.A1 is according to the defendant a concocted one made using signed blank papers and stamp papers obtained by the plaintiff while she has availed the aforesaid loan of Rs.1,72,724/- on 29/8/2000. Certainly, the defendant has not entered into the box and deposed her own case on oath and offered herself to be cross-examined by the plaintiff and hence a presumption would arise that the case set up by her is not correct. Let, it be that, but it is pertinent to note that it does not mean that the onus of proof does not lie on the plaintiff to substantiate his case. The abstract doctrine of onus of proof is always on the plaintiff. If only he discharges the onus, the burden shifts to the defendant to depose her own case. It is significant to note that the plaintiff has not even dared to speak before court that the Ext.A1 is the agreement executed by the defendant as contended by him. It is also pertinent to note that mere admission of signature or mere putting of signature in a document will not amount to proof of its execution. Execution of a document means as I already stated above a document written out read over and understood by the executant. In Ext.A1 there are the signature of all the legal heirs of the defendant also. They are all shown therein as the witnesses to the execution. That is also a suspicious circumstance which indicates the probability of defendant's case. The plaintiff has also hesitated to examine the scribe who has written the Ext.A1. Admittedly, Ext.A2 lawyer notice was issued by the plaintiff demanding specific performance as early as on 27.8.2001. But the suit for recovery of money was filed on 19.3.2005. Why the suit was filed after a lapse of about 3 ½ years. That is also a suspicious circumstance that indicates that the defendant's case is more probable. The delay may be probably as contended by the defendant in her written statement, since after Ex.A2 lawyer notice she has approached the plaintiff along with her son and requested for six months time for payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,72,724/- availed by her as loan on 29.8.2000. The fact that after receipt of Ext.A2, the defendant approached the plaintiff for an amicable settlement is not disputed rather admitted by the plaintiff in his plaint. It is suggested by the defendant while the plaintiff was in the witness box that said amount and interest altogether Rs.1,92,000/- has been paid and that the last repayment was on 28.8.2001. Probably that may be the reason as contended by the defendant why the plaintiff has not filed the suit either for repayment of the advance amount or for specific performance in the year 2001 itself.”

2. The abovesaid discussion in the impugned judgment would reveal the way and the manner in which the learned Principal Sub Judge had appreciated the dispute involved in the suit overlooking all settled principles. First of all, it is a case wherein the plaintiff claimed execution of a contract for sale, Ext.A1 and payment of advance amount by two instalments, Rs.2,20,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-. The suit was dismissed by the trial court overlooking the oral evidence tendered by the plaintiff, PW1 and production of the original agreement – Ext.A1 and admission of signature found affixed therein. In fact, the defendant had admitted receipt of some amount and advanced a case of discharge. All these relevant factors were overlooked by the learned Sub Judge while rendering the abovesaid judgment. The portion of judgment extracted above would reveal the way in which the trial court had taken into consideration of the extraneous matters. In fact, it has resulted in miscarriage of justice as the suit was ended in dismissal. First of all, the trial court did not understand the extent of admission made by the defendant regarding the execution of Ext.A1. The fact that the defendant did not mount on the box to give any direct evidence regarding the quest