JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8-2-1983 of the Additional District Judge, Sagar, passed in Civil Appeal No. 45-A/1982 (arising out of the judgment and decree dated 6-2-1979 of Additional Civil Judge Class II, Sagar passed in Civil Suit No. 12-A/1978) whereby the decree for specific performance of the contract of sale of l/3rd share of defendant's house has been confirmed. 2. Brief history of the case is that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit before the Trial Court on 5-1-1978 with the assertion that the defendant (appellant herein) executed an agreement of sale of l/3rd of his share in the ancestral house on 25-2-1968 and received consideration of Rs. 3,000/- in lieu thereof. Despite notice and requests from the plaintiff, defendant refused to execute the sale deed and further refused to get the same registered. 3. Defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that he is owner of the suit property, house No. 252, Lajpatpur, Sagar; plaintiff is his nephew and he and his ancestors have no share in the suit house. He denied the execution of the document. 4. The Trial Court decreed the suit, that was confirmed by the first appellate Court; hence this second appeal. 5. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : - (i) Whether the document Ex.P-1 was admissible in evidence, the same being unregistered in view of the decision given in /. R. R. Skinner v. R. H. Skinner, AIR 1921 PC 269? (ii) Whether the suit as framed for specific performance of the coontract was not barred by limitation for not being filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act? Thereafter, by order dated 21-9-1990 of this court the file was remanded under Order XL, Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Code with a direction to the Trial Court to record its findings on the following issue : - "Whether the document Ex.P-1 is interpolated about the period for registration and whether for that reason it is void and ineffective?" It was further directed that the finding be remanded to this Court after certification by the first appellate Court. 6. Now the findings have been received in this Court. 7. 6. Now the findings have been received in this Court. 7. The Trial Court has given the finding that the document Ex.P-1, in spite of overwriting is valid and effective as it is not proved whether the figure 7' (seven) was rewritten just to bring the suit within time. However, learned first appellate court has found that the figure 7' (seven) was interpolated and for that reason the document is void. 8. On plain reading of the document it reveals that it is not and agreement but a sale completed. 'Sale' is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. In this document (Ex.P-1) there is a recital of transfer of ownership, payment of Rs. 3,000/- added with delivery of possession. The last line contains recitation that the registration will be done afterwards. There is controversy about the figure 7 (seven) in the last line of the document, which shall be taken up afterwards. 9. Thus, it being a 'sale' for more than one hundred rupees, it requires registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. Where the language employed in an agreement of sale clearly purports to transfer of vendor's interest in the immovable property which he inherited with particulars of description of the property, the agreement comes within the terms of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and requires registration. 10. This is not an agreement of sale, but a sale completed with future stipulation of registration, and this being a document of sale and being unregistered is inadmissible in evidence. 11. There appears to be overwriting in last line of the document and there was over-figuring on figure 7' (seven). The plaintiffs and defendant both have failed to explain as to how, why and at what time this overwriting was done. The figure 7' is very crucial. Had there been no figure of 7', even otherwise the suit would have been barred by limitation. The document is dated 25-2-1968, and the suit for specific performance of contract was filed on 2-1-1978. 12. The figure 7' is very crucial. Had there been no figure of 7', even otherwise the suit would have been barred by limitation. The document is dated 25-2-1968, and the suit for specific performance of contract was filed on 2-1-1978. 12. Even otherwise, had there been no period for registration the suit for specific performance would have been barred as it was not filed within the prescribed period of three years from the date of execution of the document Thus, over-figuring on figure 7' appears to be purposeful, and this interpolation has been done with a view to bring the suit within limitation. I am, therefore, inclined to accept the finding of the appellate Court as to the interpolation. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has submitted that since the document was in the hand-writing of the defendant, burden lies on him to prove as to how and when this over-figuring was done. Thus, in the exigency of the case, burden lies on the appellant to explain the interpolation, as to how and when this over-figuring was done. Thus, in the exigency of the case, burden lies on the appellant to explain the interpolation. 14. The common rule of burden of proof is that burden lies on the person who wants the document to be acted upon. It is the plaintiff who wants to take benefit out of this document and, therefore, burden lies on him to prove to the satisfaction of the Court as to how, and when the document was executed Further, burden lies on him to prove the overwriting, over-figuring and alleged interpolation in the document. The plaintiff has completely failed to discharge this burden. Interpolation appears to be purposeful and, therefore, it has rendered the document void. 15. The plaintiff cannot be given a decree of specific performance of contract on the basis of such interpolated document. Plaintiffs suit, therefore, fails. 16. Consequently, appeal is accepted and plaintiffs suit is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 300/-, if certified.