The validity of an agreement for sale can be established by circumstantial evidence and its execution upheld if supported by substantial proof.

Sathish Ninan, J.

The suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, with an alternate relief for return of the advance sale consideration, was decreed by the trial court for the alternative relief. The defendant is in appeal.

2. Ext.A1 agreement dated 02.02.2013 is the document upon which the suit has been fled. As per Ext.A1, an extent of 11.12 ares of property, described as plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 3, is agreed to be conveyed by the defendant to the plaintiff. The properties lie as a single block. The total consideration is ₹ 70 lakhs. An amount of ₹ 65 lakhs is stated to be paid as advance sale consideration. The period fixed for performance is six months. Ext.A5 is the notice dated 27.06.2013 issued by the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to perform the agreement. Alleging failure on the part of the defendant to perform the agreement, the suit was filed on 18.07.2013.

3. The defendant denied Ext.A1 agreement. It was contended that she had availed a loan of ₹ 10 lakhs from the plaintiff, in the course of which, her signed blank papers and stamp papers were obtained by the plaintiff. The same have been fabricated into Ext.A1 agreement.

4. On the evidence on record, the trial court upheld Ext.A1 agreement. In exercise of the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act , the relief for specific performance was declined. The court granted an alternate relief of return of the advance sale consideration. There is no appeal by the plaintiff.

5. We have heard Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-defendant and Sri.R.S.Kalkura, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff.

6. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are :-

(i)Is the execution of Ext.A1 agreement proved?

(ii) Is the plaintiff entitled for a decree for the advance sale consideration mentioned in Ext.A1 agreement?

(iii) Does the decree and judgment of the trial court warrant any interference?

7. At paragraph 6 of the written statement it is pleaded thus :-

“എനനികക്ക് എനന്റെ ചനില അടനിയനനിര സസാമ്പതനിക ആവശശ്യങ്ങൾകസായനി ടനി വസാദനിയനിൽ നനിനനന്നും 10,00,000/- ലകന്നും രരൂപ കടമസായനി വസാങങ്ങണ്ട ദദൗർഭസാഗശ്യന്നും ഉണ്ടസായനിടട്ടുള്ളതനന്നും അപപകസാരന്നും പണന്നും വസായക്ക്പ തന സമയന്നും ടനിയസാൻ എനനിൽ നനിനനന്നും ഒനനന്നും എഴനതസാത മനപദ പപതങ്ങളനിലനന്നും നവള്ള ങപപ്പറനകളനിലനന്നും, രണ്ടക്ക് നചകനകളനിലനന്നും എങനയനന്നും എനന്റെ സങഹസാദരനനയനന്നും മറട്ടുന്നും നകസാണ്ടക്ക് ഒപ്പനിടടീചക്ക് വസാങ്ങനകയനന്നും എനന്റെ വക ങമൽ വനിവരനിച വസക്ക്തനകളട്ടുനട ഒറനിജനിനൽ പപമസാണന്നും ടനിയസാനന്റെ കകവശന്നും ഉറപ്പനിങലകസായനി

സരൂകനികനകയനന്നും നചയക്ക്തനിടട്ടുള്ളതനമസാകനനന. ”

A perusal of Ext.A1 reveals that, on its first page, a photograph of the defendant is affixed. Over the photograph the thumb impression of the defendant is also affixed. In the written statement the defendant did not have a case that she had affixed her photograph and thumb impression. She did not have any explanation regarding the same.

8. That apart, on the reverse side of the first page of Ext.A1, the payment of ₹ 65 lakhs towards advance sale consideration is seen acknowledged in writing, under the signature and thumb impression of the defendant. The defendant never had a case that her signature and thumb impression were obtained by the plaintiff on the reverse side of the stamp paper. Prima facie, the above circumstances justify the conclusion regarding the due execution of Ext.A1 agreement.

9. There are two witnesses to Ext.A1; they are the brothers of the defendant. The fact that the witnesses are the brothers of the defendant is a strong circumstance probabilising its genuineness. During trial, the plaintiff made attempts to examine them. T