ORDER 1. This first appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant before the trial Court being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.8.2000 passed in Civil Suit No.12-A/1997 by the Court of First Additional District Judge, Ashoknagar, District Guna in the matter of Dr. Prem Arora v. Ramjilal and others. 2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement in relation to the land contained in Survey Number 102 measuring 3.962 and Survey Number 101 measuring 1.557 hectare at Village Urjharu, Tahsil Ashoknagar or in the alternative, a refund of a sum of Rs.1.00 Lac from the defendant. Trial Court has decreed the suit and directed the defendant (present appellant) to refund a sum of Rs.1.00 Lac with interest @ 12 % per annum and also bear the costs of litigation as was incurred by the plaintiff. The suit against the defendant No.2 was dismissed as not maintainable. In this backdrop, this first appeal has been filed. 3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that he had entered into an agreement for sale Ex.P-1 dated 12.7.1996 and in this agreement to sell, defendant No.1 Ramjilal had agreed to sell 1/3rd of his share in Survey Number 102 measuring 3.962 hectares and 1/3rd share in Survey No.101 measuring 1.557 hectare. He had represented that since he is karta-dharta of his family, therefore, he has authority to execute the said agreement, and sale of such parcel of land was agreed to be made for a consideration of Rs.1.00 Lac. It is also mentioned that he had received a sum of Rs.85,000/- in cash and remaining amount shall be received by him at the time of Registry. This agreement also has a handwritten endorsement dated 9.1.1997, wherein it is mentioned that Ramjilal Son of Devi Prasad had obtained a sum of Rs.15,000/- from Dr. Prem Arora. On the basis of such agreement, the plaintiff has claimed his right to get the decree of specific performance of the agreement and accordingly filed the suit. 4. Defendant No.1 had taken a plea that the agreement in question Ex. P-1 was not executed by him and if presumption is to be drawn, then it is between defendant Ramjilal and one Dr. 4. Defendant No.1 had taken a plea that the agreement in question Ex. P-1 was not executed by him and if presumption is to be drawn, then it is between defendant Ramjilal and one Dr. K.M. Arora Son of Shri Daryayilal Arora, and Dr. Prem Arora had nothing to do with the said agreement and therefore Dr. Prem Arora-plaintiff was not entitled to file a suit for specific performance against the appellant as there was no agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is submitted that the plaintiff is a marginal farmer and was not authorized to alienate the suit property and has been roped by dubious means. It is also submitted that there was no occasion for him to write same endorsement dated 9.1.1997 twice, firstly on page 1 of the so-called agreement and later on last page. This gives rise to suspicion that a pre-signed blank paper was misused by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the learned trial Court overlooked these facts and in para 16, it has been recorded by the trial Court that since the plaintiff has not taken a plea that he had executed the document in favour of some other person namely K.M. Arora, therefore, in terms of the provisions contained in sections 95 and 97 of the Indian Evidence Act, it can be presumed that due to typing mistake the name “Prem” has been recorded as “KM” and it is also mentioned that it is possible that word “Prem” was heard in Hindi and in English “KM” was written; otherwise the remaining writing on the agreement is correct, therefore, on the basis of such findings and also recording a finding in para 17 that in the handwritten script dated 9.1.1997 since the name of “Dr. Prem Arora” is mentioned, therefore, it was held that defendant No.1 Ramjilal had executed the document in favour of Prem Arora only and on such premises, the suit was decreed in favour of Prem Arora. 5. Defendant No.1 in his written statement categorically mentioned that the contention of the plaintiff that due to typographical mistake “KM”was mentioned in place of “Prem”, is false and denied. It was clearly mentioned that the allegation of the plaintiff that after hearing Prem in Hindi, in English “KM”was mentioned, was also denied. 5. Defendant No.1 in his written statement categorically mentioned that the contention of the plaintiff that due to typographical mistake “KM”was mentioned in place of “Prem”, is false and denied. It was clearly mentioned that the allegation of the plaintiff that after hearing Prem in Hindi, in English “KM”was mentioned, was also denied. It was clearly mentioned that Notary had also clearly mentioned the name of K.M. Arora and it was also submitted that the agreement was always in possession of the plaintiff and when he had given notice dated 19.6.1997, then the defendant had filed reply to the said notice on 1.7.1997 and had asked for a copy of the agreement or its photocopy, but it was never supplied to the defendant and the plaintiff had filed a suit on 19.7.1997 before the Court. It was also mentioned that Notary after making a detailed enquiry had mentioned the name K.M. Arora at the place of notarization and even the stamp paper has been purchased in the name of Krishna Mohan (KM) and therefore it cannot be said that the agreement was executed between Prem Arora and the defendant. In view of such averments in the written statement, it was submitted that in fact Prem Arora is a private doctor and he has a clinic in the name of “Prem Clinic”at Ashoknagar. Defendant was suffering from Motijhira and cough, for which he had taken treatment from the plaintiff for a period of one month and thereafter from one Dr. D.K. Jain from whose treatment he could be cured. It is also mentioned that in November 1996, his wife Soraj Bai had suffered swelling in her limbs, as a result of which, he had taken treatment for his wife from the doctor. It is also mentioned that he had taken treatment for illness of his son Jitendra also from the plaintiff and the plaintiff used to render treatment to the family members of the defendant even with condition of realization of his bills in future, i.e., on credit basis and if during this period if the plaintiff had fraudulently obtained signatures of defendant No.1 with a view to obtain valuable land, then on such documents he has no cause of action inasmuch as no money was ever transferred in favour of defendant No.1. It is also submitted that these lands are only source of livelihood of the defendant and his family members and, therefore, he denied the agreement and also receiving consideration of Rs.85,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. In this backdrop, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by the trial Court in paras 16 and 17 are contrary to record inasmuch as the trial Court has wrongly recorded a finding that the defendant had not said that the document Ex.P-1 was executed in favour of K.M. Arora. It is also submitted by the appellant that there are no signatures of Prem Arora on the agreement and therefore such agreement is not binding on defendant No.1. 6. In view of such discussion and documentary evidence on record, the provisions of section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act are to be appreciated, which says that when language used in a document is plain in itself, but is unmeaning in reference to existing facts, evidence may be given to show that it was used in a peculiar sense. This section is based on the maxim “falsa demonstration on necet” (a false description does not vitiate the document). In fact, section 97 is a part of the rule in this section and both the sections are to be read together. Section 97 provides that when the language used applies partly to one set of existing facts, and partly to another set of existing facts, but the whole of it does not apply correctly to either, evidence may be given to show to which of the two it was meant to apply. 7. In this case, the plaintiff has examined a handwriting expert Jai Prakash Verma, who has in his cross-examination admitted that on Ex.P-1 agreement, writings from ”ka” to “ka” part could have been noted down subsequently. He has also admitted that signatures of Ramjilal are not at a place where writings “ka” to “ka” finishes but are in the side. He has also admitted that the writings from “ka” to “ka” part initially lies in symmetry whereas subsequent lines are not in symmetry. Similarly, the writings from “kha” to “kha” are in symmetry in the beginning and thereafter a symmetrical. He has also admitted that the writings from “ka” to “ka” part initially lies in symmetry whereas subsequent lines are not in symmetry. Similarly, the writings from “kha” to “kha” are in symmetry in the beginning and thereafter a symmetrical. He also admitted that he had not examined the writings from “ka” to “ka” and “kha” to “kha” and, therefore, without examination he cannot say whether both have been written by the same person or not. He also admitted that there was deviation in the signatures of the author of the person who had signed as Ramjilal. Thereafter, the plaintiff examined himself, but the plaintiff did not take pains to examine either the witnesses to the so-called agreement namely Ganeshram Son of Prabhulal Kushwah and Champalal son of Ramratan Sen, who were the witnesses to the agreement. Plaintiff also did not take pains to examine the Notary Advocate namely Shri K.S. Raghuwanshi who had notarized the agreement and had mentioned the name of Dr. Shri K.M. Arora clearly in English. Similarly, he did not examine the stamp vendor Shri M.K. Sahu, who has clearly mentioned “babat Iqrarnama haste Krishna Mohan” in Hindi inasmuch as all these persons would have been best witnesses to satisfy the requirements of sections 95 and 97 of the Indian Evidence Act. As has been noted above, section 97 provides that when the language used applies partly to one set of existing facts and partly to another set of existing facts, but the whole of it does not apply correctly to either, evidence may be given to show to which of the two it was meant to apply. Therefore, the onus was on the plaintiff to show that the executant of the document was Ramjilal and that document was in fact executed in favour of the plaintiff and not in favour of Dr. K.M. Arora. For this, he was required to show that the stamp vendor had incorrectly mentioned the name of Krishna Mohan, Notary had incorrectly mentioned the name of Dr. K.M. Arora and so also the typist has wrongly mentioned the name as K.M. Arora, but none of these persons were examined by the plaintiff and, therefore, the requirements of sections 95 and 97 were not fulfilled. 8. K.M. Arora and so also the typist has wrongly mentioned the name as K.M. Arora, but none of these persons were examined by the plaintiff and, therefore, the requirements of sections 95 and 97 were not fulfilled. 8. As far as the appellant's contention, that since there are no signatures of Prem Arora on the agreement, is concerned, the agreement is not binding, which deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. 9. As a result, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court have not been passed by appreciating of the evidence in the correct perspective as none of the material witnesses to the document, which formed the backbone of the transaction on the basis of which the suit was filed, were examined and in absence of their examination, the impugned order cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Parties to bear their own costs.