JUDGMENT Raghvendra Kumar, J. – Heard learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. 2. Initially an Original Suit No.334 of 2008 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent Dhirendra Nath Dubey against defendant-appellant Hira Lal Dubey for relief of specific performance of the contract. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff vide order dated 10.7.2013 passed by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadohi. Being aggrieved by the order, the defendant-appellant preferred the first appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, District-Bhadohi (Gyanpur) vide order dated 14.10.2016. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Courts below, the instant second appeal is before this Court. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the defendant-appellant that no such agreement to sell dated 15.11.2006 was ever executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the property disclosed in the plaint and the defendant had taken a plea that he accompanied the plaintiff to a certain office in connection with loan formality and in the garb of loan papers, the signatures of the defendant were obtained. As such, fraud was committed by the plaintiff against the defendant. 4. On the contrary, the plaintiff has taken a plea that the agreement to sell was executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff and the agreement to sell was registered in the Office of Sub Registrar on 15.11.2006 and the sale consideration amount was settled between the parties of Rs.1,10,000/and out of the said consideration amount Rs.1 lakh has been paid. When the plaintiff made a request to the defendant for executing the sale deed, he did not respond to it thereafter two registered notices dated 8.8.2008 and 3.9.2008 were sent to the defendant. 5. It has been submitted by the counsel for the defendant-appellant that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and the learned Court below has failed to consider the statutory provisions contained under Section 16 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act 1963. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant further submitted that in view of the aforesaid statutory provisions the learned trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed error in passing the orders against the defendant-appellant. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant further submitted that in view of the aforesaid statutory provisions the learned trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed error in passing the orders against the defendant-appellant. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant further made a prayer that he has no objection if the sale consideration amount is ordered to be paid to the plaintiff-respondent. Thus, the Courts below have committed error in the light of the statutory provisions contained in the Specific Relief Act as referred above. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that the agreement to sell is a registered document. There is a legal presumption about the validity and authenticity of the document though it is rebuttable and the person who disputes such document is under obligation to rebut the legal presumption by cogent, direct and specific evidence. The defendant has admitted that he is qualified up to the 10th standard. The defendant has admitted his signature over the document but has denied about reading the document. The law is settled on the point that once the signature of a person over a document is admitted, the burden heavily lies upon that person to rebut the averments contained therein. 7. The trial Court has framed the following issues, which are extracted hereinunder : - %hnd1%1- D;k oknh okni= esa of.kZr dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij lV~Vk bdjkjukek fnukafdr 15-11-2006 ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh ls lV~Vk dk vuqikyu rFkk fookfnr Hkwfe dk cSukek djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- D;k nkok oknh /kkjk 16 lh o /kkjk 18 o 20 fof'k"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e ls ckf/kr gS\ 3- D;k oknh dks dksbZ okn dkj.k mRiUu gqvk\ 4- D;k oknh us okn dk ewY;kadu de fd;k gS vkSj iznRr U;k;'kqYd vi;kZIr gS\ 5- D;k oknh fdlh vuqrks"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\%hnd2% 8. For convenience sake Section 16 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act is reproduced herein below : "16. Personal bars to relief. For convenience sake Section 16 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act is reproduced herein below : "16. Personal bars to relief. Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favor of a person- (a) who would not be entitled to recover compensation for its breach; or (b) who has become incapable of performing, or violates any essential term of, the contract that on his part remains to be performed, or acts in fraud of the contract, or wilfully acts at variance with, or in subversion of, the relation intended to be established by the contract; or (c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms of the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. Explanation : For the purposes of clause (c), (i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court; (ii) the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction." "20. Discretion as to decreeing specific performance - (1) The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary, and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; but the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of appeal. (2) The following are cases in which the court may properly exercise discretion not to decree specific performance: (a) where the terms of the contract or the conduct of the parties at the time of entering into the contract or the other circumstances under which the contract was entered into are such that the contract, though not voidable, gives the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendant; or (b) where the performance of the contract would involve some hardship on the defendant which he did not foresee, whereas its nonperformance would involve no such hardship on the plaintiff; or (c) where the defendant entered into the contract under circumstances which though not rendering the contract voidable, makes it inequitable to enforce specific performance. Explanation 1 : Mere inadequacy of consideration, or the mere fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident in its nature, shall not be deemed to constitute an unfair advantage within the meaning of clause (a) or hardship within the meaning of clause (b). Explanation 2: The question whether the performance of a contract would involve hardship on the defendant within the meaning of clause (b) shall, except in cases where the hardship has resulted from any act of the plaintiff subsequent to the contract, be determined with reference to the circumstances existing at the time of the contract. (3) The court may properly exercise discretion to decree specific performance in any case where the plaintiff has done substantial acts or suffered losses in consequence of a contract capable of specific performance. (4) The court shall not refuse to any party specific performance of a contract merely on the ground that the contract is not enforceable at the instance of the party." 9. After considering the pleadings, evidence and statutory provisions, the learned trial Court bearing in mind the proposition of law laid down and quoted in the body of the judgment recorded findings on issue no. (1) and (2) in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-appellant. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down in the case of Ram Singh v. Sughar Singh, 2010 Laws (All) 964. This citation deals with the aspect of hardship. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the case of Nanjappan v. Ramasamy and others, 2015 Laws (SC) 290 wherein approximately 8 years have lapsed. He has also placed reliance upon the case of Shiv Charan Das v. Charan Lal, 2013 Laws (All) 867and on the basis of aforesaid propositions of law, the aspect of hardship has been highlighted. 11. The hardship is an aspect which is to be seen in reference to the instant case that in case the specific performance is ordered, who is to suffer. Admittedly, in this case defendant no.1 has executed the agreement to sell and he has taken a plea that in the garb of loan documents is signatures were fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff. The fraud was played and he will suffer the hardship in the event of execution of the sale deed. Admittedly, in this case defendant no.1 has executed the agreement to sell and he has taken a plea that in the garb of loan documents is signatures were fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff. The fraud was played and he will suffer the hardship in the event of execution of the sale deed. It is pertinent to consider that the defendant has not examined any of the witnesses to substantiate his averments regarding fraud and after obtaining the signatures on the ground of loan or with respect to the hardship. No such evidence has been led by the defendant. Whereas the learned trial Court has extensively dealt with the issue no.(1) & (2) and after consdering the pleadings, evidence and the recitals contained in the agreement to sell passed the decree against the defendant-appellant. The First Appellate Court also crtically appraised the pleadings, evidence, findings recorded by the trial Court and affirmed the findings. There are concurrent findings of the Courts below. The law is settled that intervention by way of the second appeal should be made only where there is a perversity in the findings or where there is a case of misreading of evidence or the findings has been recorded without any evidence available on record. None of the above ingredients are attracted in this case. The Courts below have recorded a reasoned findings. The evidence has been appreciated in the light of the pleadings. There appears no justification to interfere in the findings recorded by the Courts below. 12. The appeal is bereft of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.