JUDGMENT Abhay M. Naik, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 10-2-2000 passed by the Court of First Additional District Judge, Guna in Civil Appeal No. 28-A/1998. 2. Facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that plaintiff/respondent No. 1 instituted a suit for specific performance and perpetual injunction, mainly with the allegations that defendant/appellant No. 1 was recorded Bhumiswami of the land comprised in Survey No. 170/1/2 in area 0.490 hectare situated in Village Dhanankhedi, Tehsil and District Guna. On mediation of Jalam Singh, father of defendant/appellant No. 1, appellant No. 2 entered into an agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff in respect of the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. Initially, agreement was oral and possession was delivered to the plaintiff pursuant thereto. On 16-12-1994, an agreement was reduced into writing and entire consideration was received by the appellant No. 2 in cash. Plaintiff was short of expenses of registered document, therefore, it was agreed that the plaintiff after harvesting of crops in the month of May, 1995 would get the sale deed executed from appellant No. 2. Negotiations in respect of agreement were made by Ratanlal Kirar-husband of plaintiff on her behalf and consideration was also paid by him on plaintiff's behalf to the appellant No. 2. Similarly, possession of the suit land was also obtained by plaintiff's son on her behalf. On 23-7-1995, appellant No. 2 asked the plaintiffs husband to remove his possession and threatened him of dispossession, in case possession is not removed. It is further stated in the plaint that mutation in favour of plaintiff was already made by Patwari on the basis of sale agreement which was well within the knowledge of appellant No. 2 before he purchased it from appellant No. 1. Thus, both the defendants/appellants were and are bound by the sale agreement dated 16-12-1994. Therefore, plaintiff instituted a suit against defendants/appellants for specific performance and perpetual injunction, restraining them from interfering into plaintiff's possession. In alternative plea, refund of consideration was sought. 3. Defendants/appellants submitted a joint written statement, refuting thereby allegations contained in the plaint. It was denied that appellant No. 2 entered into an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and had delivered possession of the suit land in pursuance of it. Alleged written agreement dated 16-12-1994 was also denied. In alternative plea, refund of consideration was sought. 3. Defendants/appellants submitted a joint written statement, refuting thereby allegations contained in the plaint. It was denied that appellant No. 2 entered into an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and had delivered possession of the suit land in pursuance of it. Alleged written agreement dated 16-12-1994 was also denied. It was further denied that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was received by defendant No. 2 from plaintiff. 4. In additional plea, it was stated that appellant No. 2 had already entered into an agreement of sale in favour of appellant No. 1 on 16-8-1994 and pursuant thereto a registered sale deed was executed by him in favour of appellant No. 1 on 14-3-1995, therefore, the alleged subsequent agreement in favour of plaintiff is void and ineffective. 5. It is pertinent to note that it was pleaded in Para 3 of the written statement that appellant No. 2 puts his thumb impression being illiterate. In case, if an agreement has been got prepared by the plaintiff taking undue advantage of illiteracy of appellant No. 2, the same is not binding and is not enforceable. Although, the mutation in favour of plaintiff was admitted by defendants, it was stated that the same could not have been effected on the basis of merely an agreement. This apart, it was stated that defendant No. 1 has been in possession of the suit land since 16-8-1994 and, possession could not have been delivered on 16-12-1994 to the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. 6. After framing of issues, plaintiff examined herself (P.W. 1), Ratanlal (P.W. 2), Ramgopal (P.W. 3) and Shyamlal (P.W. 4) in her evidence. She produced agreement dated 16-12-1994 (Exh. P-1) in her documentary evidence. 7. Defendants/appellants did not adduce either documentary or oral evidence. 8. Learned Trial Judge vide judgment and decree dated 26-8-1998 has held that the alleged agreement dated 16-12-1994 was not duly proved and that plaintiff has failed to prove readiness on her part to get the sale deed executed. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. 9. P-1) in her documentary evidence. 7. Defendants/appellants did not adduce either documentary or oral evidence. 8. Learned Trial Judge vide judgment and decree dated 26-8-1998 has held that the alleged agreement dated 16-12-1994 was not duly proved and that plaintiff has failed to prove readiness on her part to get the sale deed executed. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, plaintiff preferred an appeal which having been allowed, the present appeal has been submitted which is heard on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court committed error in granting the decree in spite of the admission made by P.W. 2 in Para 6 of his evidence that he had knowledge of the agreement dated 16-8-1994 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2? (ii) Whether the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court is perverse and contrary to the admission made by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser and in spite of knowledge of agreement dated 16-8-1994, executed an agreement for purpose of suit land vide Exh. P-1, dated 16-12-1994 and Lower Appellate Court committed legal error in decreeing the suit? 10. Shri Vilas Tikhe and Shri R.P. Rathi, learned Counsel for the parties addressed this Court on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 11. As regards substantial question of law No. 1, it is contended by Shri Vilas Tikhe, learned Counsel for the appellants that Ratanlal, husband of the plaintiff has admitted in Paragraph No. 6 of his statement that he had knowledge about the agreement dated 16-8-1994, set up by the defendant No. 2 in his favour. On perusal, it is found that the said witness who happens to be husband of the plaintiff, has stated in this paragraph that he talked to the Patwari for mutation, after about 15 days from the date of agreement in favour of the plaintiff. Patwari had assured that the mutation would be done on the basis of the said document without even registered deed. This witness has further stated that Omprakash, defendant No. 2 had asked Ratanlal that why did he get the document prepared in his favour. He was apprised of the same by Omprakash. Patwari had assured that the mutation would be done on the basis of the said document without even registered deed. This witness has further stated that Omprakash, defendant No. 2 had asked Ratanlal that why did he get the document prepared in his favour. He was apprised of the same by Omprakash. This witness has clearly stated in this paragraph that when the document (i.e., agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiff) was executed this witness had no knowledge about the alleged agreement in favour of Omprakash. 12. From the gist of events stated hereinabove by the said witness in Paragraph No. 6, it is revealed that it was never admitted by the plaintiff's husband that he was aware of the alleged agreement in favour of Omprakash. On the contrary, it was clearly stated in the statement that the said witness (husband of the plaintiff) was not aware of the alleged agreement in favour of Omprakash when the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff was executed. In view of the aforesaid, substantial question of law No. 1 is decided against the appellant. 13. As regards substantial question of law No. 2, it is stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant that Imratlal, defendant/appellant No. 2 was an illiterate and the agreement to sell contained in Exh. P-1 is not duly proved by the plaintiff inasmuch as the contents of the document are not proved to have been explained to defendant No. 2 and are further not shown to have been accepted by him at the time of putting the thumb impression. Reliance has been placed for this purpose on the decision of this Court in the case of Dhaniram v. Karan Singh 1985 MPWN 540 , wherein it has been held that in case of execution by an illiterate person, it has to be proved that the executant was made aware of the contents of the documents before execution and he had accepted the same. 14. Normally, the aforesaid is the position of law when execution of a document by an illiterate is disputed. In the present case, defendant Imratlal is admittedly an illiterate person, who has put thumb impression on the Vakalatnama as well as written statement. 14. Normally, the aforesaid is the position of law when execution of a document by an illiterate is disputed. In the present case, defendant Imratlal is admittedly an illiterate person, who has put thumb impression on the Vakalatnama as well as written statement. Plaintiffs case is that Imratlal agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff on negotiation through Jalam Singh, father of defendant No. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. Entire consideration was received by Imratlal and pursuant thereto, possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff. It was initially agreed orally which was later on reduced into writing on 16-12-1994. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 submitted joint written statement refuting thereby by the plaint averments. However, it is important to note that in Paragraph No. 3 of the written statement it has been stated in specific that the defendant No. 3 does not put signature but puts thumb impression. If the plaintiffs have taken undue advantage of the same, it has no legal significance. 15. Thus, it may be seen that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have not in specific denied that the sale agreement contained in Exh. P-1 bears his thumb impression. Plaintiff in her statement has stated that her husband participated in the proceedings of agreement on her behalf. Her husband Ratanlal appeared as P.W. 2 who has stated on oath about the terms and condition of the agreement. He has stated in specific that he had paid Rs. 10,000/- to Imratlal and that Imratlal after counting the money, had put his thumb impression on the sale agreement contained in Exh. P-1. His this version that Imratlal put his thumb impression after counting money, has not been cross-examined at all. Similarly, he was not cross-examined on his statement that Imratlal had received Rs. 10,000/- and had counted it. In the absence of cross-examination on this point, it would be presumed that the version of P.W. 2 that Imratlal had put his signature on the sale agreement (Exh. P-1) after counting and receiving Rs. 10,000/- as consideration, is admitted to the defendants. 10,000/- and had counted it. In the absence of cross-examination on this point, it would be presumed that the version of P.W. 2 that Imratlal had put his signature on the sale agreement (Exh. P-1) after counting and receiving Rs. 10,000/- as consideration, is admitted to the defendants. An illiterate person who accepts money as consideration, counts it and puts his thumb impression thereafter in token thereto, may be conveniently presumed to be well aware of the contents of the document on which he puts his thumb impression, unless he pleads and proves that the money received by him was for some another particular purpose. In the written statement, it has been nowhere pleaded by Imratlal that the money was received by him for consideration for some other purpose. No such suggestion was made to P.W. 2 in his cross-examination. Above all, it may be seen that the defendants have not even dared to appear in the witness box. In the peculiar facts and circumstances as stated herein above, law laid down by this Court in the case of Dhaniram (supra), has no applicability and the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court are thus not found to be perverse. 16. As regards third substantial question of law, it is observed that it was for the defendant/appellant No. 1 to prove the existence of the alleged agreement dated 16-8-1994. No such agreement was placed on record by the defendants either in the cross-examination or in their own evidence. On the contrary, defendants have not even appeared in the witness box to establish the existence of the alleged agreement dated 16-8-1994. While deciding substantial question of law No. 1, it has already been held that the plaintiff or her husband (P.W. 2) has nowhere admitted the existence of the aforesaid alleged agreement. In the absence of establishment of existence of the alleged agreement dated 16-8-94, plaintiff was not required to prove that he was bonafide purchaser. On the contrary, defendant Imratlal having executed the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff after receiving consideration is bound to execute registered sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff as directed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. Plaintiff and her husband both have stated on oath that Imratlal had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff in the presence of Omprakash (appellant No. 1) and his father Jalam Singh. Plaintiff and her husband both have stated on oath that Imratlal had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff in the presence of Omprakash (appellant No. 1) and his father Jalam Singh. Both these persons have not appeared in the witness box to refute it. Thus, the Lower Appellate Court is not found to have committed any error in granting a decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff. Substantial question of law No. 3 is also decided against the appellant. 17. In the result, appeal being without merits is hereby dismissed, however with no order as to costs.