The burden of proving the genuineness of a sale agreement rests on the plaintiff, and the court may rely on discrepancies in evidence to reject the agreement.

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.200 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Melur, is the appellant in the second appeal. She filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale between herself and the respondent. Her case was as follows: On 25.4.1983 the respondent executed a sale agreement in respect of the suit property in her favour agreeing to sell the property of Rs.6,000 received Rs.5,000 as advance on the date of agreement and further agreed to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property within a period of three years after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 1,000 from her. It was further agreed that if the respondent failed to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance amount within the stipulated period, he should surrender possession of the property to her. He also further agreed to give half share of the produce from the suit property till he executed the sale deed in her favour. Inspite of the repeated demands made by her, the respondent did not receive the balance of Rs. 1,000 from her and execute to the sale deed. She had always been ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration and get the sale deed executed in her favour at her cost. Mediators are also sent with a requisition to receive the balance sale price and execute the sale deed. As the respondent was not willing, on 21.4.1986 she caused a notice to be issued to the respondent calling upon him to receive the balance amount and execute the sale deed. He did not agree. She was willing to deposit the balance amount of Rs.1,000 into court and the suit for specific performance came to be filed.

3. The defence set up by the respondent was a follows:

The averments in the plaint were all false. No agreement was entered into between him and the appellant. He did not receive any amount, much less Rs 5,000 from the appellant. The sale agreement was created and forged one and not supported by consideration. It had been created by the father of the appellant by name Veeman Ambalam in the name of the appellant in connivance with his henchmen, the attestators of the sale agreement being none other than the father and the son of the appellant. Even if it was assumed that the sale agreement was a true document it was not valid under law as it was an unilateral document. There was ample motive for the said Veeman Ambalam to come up with such an agreement. No suit notice was received by the respondent from the appellant. The suit property had been all along in his possession and enjoyment.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned District Munsif, Melur, framed the necessary issues and on other oral and documentary evidence found that the sale agreement was a true one. That respondent received Rs.5,000 in cash from the appellant, that he was liable to execute a sale deed in favour of the appellant. So holding, the learned District Munsif by judgment and decree dated 30.6.1987 decreed the suit. The respondent filed appeal A.S.No.172 of 1987 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, who different from the finding of the trial court and by judgment and decree dated 26.8.1988 allowed the appeal, setting aside the decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the present second appeal has been filed.

5. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed fro decision in the second appeal:

1. Whether in the absence of expert evidence on the side of the defendant regarding the genuineness of his signatures in Exs.A.2 and A.3, the lower appellate court is correct in law in holding that the defendant has not signed them by merely comparing the signatures in Exs.A.2 and A.3 with the Vakalat signed by him, especially when Exs.A.2 and A.3 have been proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2? and

2. Whether the lower appellate court has committed material error in not shifting the burden on the defendant in proving that Ex.A.2 does not contain his signatures and holdin