JUDGMENT : K.SUJANA, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2014 passed in O.S.No.46 of 2006 on the file of I-Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar. The suit in O.S.No.46 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of a contract based on an agreement of sale dated 24.12.2002 and also claimed compensation/damages of Rs. 20,00,000/- with future interest at 18% per annum from the defendant. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 2. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was the owner and possessor of lands bearing Sy.Nos.441/AA, 487/AA, 489/AA, 490/AA, 492/AA, 491/AA, 553/AA, 485/AA, 486/AA, and 343/AA, admeasuring Ac.23.03.5 guntas, situated at Kishanagar Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The defendant had purchased the said lands through a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 5702/2002. The defendant, in view of family and legal necessity, offered to sell the said lands and the plaintiff expressed his willingness to purchase the same and the sale consideration was settled at Rs.70,000/- per acre, amounting to a total of Rs.16,16,125/-. Accordingly, an agreement of sale was executed on 24.12.2002 between the parties, the plaintiff paid Rs.12,00,000/- as earnest money to the defendant at the time of agreement and the balance sale consideration to be paid on or before 31.08.2006, and the defendant would execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff further claimed that he was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration even before the stipulated date and had offered the same to the defendant. However, the defendant allegedly avoided accepting the said amount without any valid reason. Thereafter the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had started negotiating with third parties for sale of the same lands and was planning to return the earnest money. The plaintiff contended that the defendant intended to back out of the agreement due to a rise in land prices. As such, to show his bonafides, plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 27.08.2006, calling upon the defendant to honour the agreement and informed him of his readiness to pay the balance sale consideration by 31.08.2006 and complete the registration of sale deed. However, the said notice was refused by the defendant and was returned with the endorsement "refused" on 29.08.2006. As such, to show his bonafides, plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 27.08.2006, calling upon the defendant to honour the agreement and informed him of his readiness to pay the balance sale consideration by 31.08.2006 and complete the registration of sale deed. However, the said notice was refused by the defendant and was returned with the endorsement "refused" on 29.08.2006. As such, the conduct of the defendant amounted to a refusal to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff reiterated his willingness to perform his part of the agreement, including paying the balance sale amount and completing registration. However, the defendant, on the other hand, allegedly offered to return the earnest money with mala fide intention and the plaintiff refused to accept the same and insisted for performance of the contract. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had committed breach of contract and retained a substantial amount for over four years. Hence, plaintiff sought specific performance of the agreement of sale. In the alternative, he prayed for compensation/damages of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest, alleging financial loss and hardship caused by the defendant. 4. The defendant filed written statement in the suit admitting that he was the owner of the suit schedule property but denied that the plaintiff had entered into any agreement of sale on 24.12.2002 with him for a total sale consideration of Rs.16,16,125/-, or that the plaintiff had paid Rs.12,00,000/- as earnest money. The defendant contended that no such transaction ever took place and claimed that the agreement was a fabricated document created by the plaintiff in collusion with his brother, Vanga Surender Reddy, who had sold the suit land to the defendant under a registered sale deed bearing No.5702/2002 dated 18.12.2002. The defendant denied having refused any legal notice or the receipt of any balance consideration, and termed the plaintiff’s claims as false and baseless. He asserted that there was no agreement between the parties and, therefore, there is no obligation on his part to execute any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. He further submitted that he is a relative of plaintiff, and alleged that the plaintiff and his brother were attempting to unlawfully grab the suit lands. He asserted that there was no agreement between the parties and, therefore, there is no obligation on his part to execute any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. He further submitted that he is a relative of plaintiff, and alleged that the plaintiff and his brother were attempting to unlawfully grab the suit lands. He stated that on the date of registration of the original sale deed i.e., 18.12.2002, the plaintiff and his brother tricked him into signing some typed English documents and a blank stamped paper, claiming as it was required for registration purposes. The defendant categorically denied having signed any agreement of sale dated 24.12.2002, and alleged that the said agreement was forged and fabricated for the purpose of filing the present suit. He called upon the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the said document and asserted that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, including compensation or damages. Hence, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. 5. Basing on the said pleadings, the trial Court framed three issues. On behalf of the plaintiff Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked and on behalf of the defendant Dw.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. The trial Court after elaborately discussing the evidence, dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the plaintiff. 6. Heard Sri M.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and Sri V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the respondent-defendant. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the trial court failed to consider the admitted fact that Ex.A.1 was executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. The defendant signed on Ex.A.1 and the same was also admitted. The court below disbelieved Ex.A.1 as the same is not in accordance with law, and also not considered receipt of Rs.12,00,000/- by the defendant. He further contended that Ex.A.1 was executed in the presence of one Srisailam and Eshwaraiah, who are attestors to Ex.A.1. Initially the suit was decreed ex parte by the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2007 in favour of plaintiff as the defendant has not appeared before the Court by refusing to receive the summons. He further contended that Ex.A.1 was executed in the presence of one Srisailam and Eshwaraiah, who are attestors to Ex.A.1. Initially the suit was decreed ex parte by the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2007 in favour of plaintiff as the defendant has not appeared before the Court by refusing to receive the summons. He further contended that as the defendant has not come forward to receive the balance sale consideration, plaintiff filed Execution Petition and deposited the balance sale consideration in the Court and the Court below executed sale deed on 28.03.2008 in favour of the plaintiff by delivering possession of the suit schedule property. The trial Court also failed to see that Dw.1 admitted in cross examination that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the plea of defendant that he has signed on empty paper and if it is so, why the defendant has not filed any complaint against the plaintiff and though the plaintiff has proved his case, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the suit. 8. He further contended that that there is clear admission on behalf of defendant that he signed on Ex.A.1, but it is a fabricated document, when the defendant admitted signature on Ex.A.1 it is his burden to prove that it is a fabricated document, but without considering the same, the trial Court disbelieved Ex.A.1. The suit agreement was of the year 2002 and he has issued notice in the year 2006 which was refused to receive by the defendant. Further Dw.1 in his cross-examination fairly admitted that himself and Gopal Reddy are also having cordial relations and he also admitted that Gopal Reddy came to the Court and that he was in Court hall and that he do not know whether there are any disputes between Gopal Reddy and plaintiff and the wife of Gopal Reddy has filed revenue appeal against the plaintiff and he does not know whether there are any disputes between the plaintiff and his brother Surender Reddy. However, there are cordial relations between Surender Reddy and Gopal Reddy which itself shows that the said persons are interested in the litigation and they are behind the defendant. As such prayed this Court to set aside the judgment of trial Court by allowing this appeal. 9. However, there are cordial relations between Surender Reddy and Gopal Reddy which itself shows that the said persons are interested in the litigation and they are behind the defendant. As such prayed this Court to set aside the judgment of trial Court by allowing this appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant would submit that mere admission of signature on document cannot be construed as admission of document and plaintiff failed to prove essential ingredients in Ex.A.1 when the executants denies the knowledge of contents of document, when he signed as in the present case, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove it by examining independent witnesses like attestors and scribe to show that the executants has knowledge of contents of the document, and proof of contents that means the reality of transaction under the document which the plaintiff failed to prove. The contents and signature on document are totally distinct with each other and each of them needs to be proved independently by the plaintiff and defendant clearly denied execution and contents of Ex.A.1 as such it can be safely concluded that it is a fabricated document. 10. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment in Veena Singh (dead) through LR V District Registrar/Additional Collector (F/R) and another , AIR Online 2022 SC 690 wherein the relevant para reads as under : “... Admission of Execution… It is submitted that the mere proof or admission that a person’s signature appears on a document cannot by itself amount to execution of the document… Where a person had signed a document after being aware of the nature of the document, he has executed the document, and, it is submitted, the Registrar cannot go into the question whether the document has been obtained by coercion; but when a signature has been obtained by false representations and the ostensible executant did not sign with the intention of being bound by the terms of the document, such a person cannot be said to have executed the document.” (emphasis supplied) ... …. An execution does not mean merely signing but signing by way of assent to the terms embodied in the document. …. An execution does not mean merely signing but signing by way of assent to the terms embodied in the document. When the executant admits his signature on the document but takes a further plea that his signature was taken by force after detaining him in a room or fraud was practiced upon him in obtaining his signatures on the deed or he was duped to sign on blank papers etc., and there is no material before the Registering Officer to rebut the plea of the executant, then there cannot be any “admission” within the meaning of Section 35 (1) (a) of the Act because the mind of the signer did not accompany the signature…” (emphasis supplied) 11. In Ganesh Shet V Dr.C.S.G.K.Setty and others, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2216 in para 37 it was held as under : “… If only the plaintiff was able to prove the agreement as pleaded by him there was no difficulty in granting a decree for specific performance, as the evidence on record does not disclose that the case falls within any of the exceptions mentioned either in Section 16 or Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. No doubt specific relief is an equitable remedy and (it is the) discretion is required to be exercised judicially on the basis of establishment principles of equity, justice and fairplay”. The High Court then stated : “The party has to approach the Court with clean hands. The contract sought to be enforced must be established. As the agreement pleaded by the plaintiff has not been established, on Point No.3, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled for a decree for specific performance.” 12. The further contention of learned counsel for the defendant is that there is no evidence lead by the plaintiff as to how he got huge amount of Rs.12 lakhs in cash at once which was paid to the defendant. Therefore, the plea of making payment of such amount to defendant is not proved and is highly improbable. Therefore, payment of huge amount as advance is not proved by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plea of making payment of such amount to defendant is not proved and is highly improbable. Therefore, payment of huge amount as advance is not proved by the plaintiff. The original sale deed through which the defendant purchased the property on 18.12.2002 which is a link document of title of the defendant is still with the defendant and the said aspect was elicited from him during cross-examination and after registration of lands Dw.1 received original sale deed after 45 days from Sub- registrar office. Though plaintiff claimed that he paid huge amount, he did not receive any original document. As such requested this Court to dismiss the appeal. 13. Basing on the above contentions, now the points to be determined are : 1. Whether agreement of sale dated 24.12.2002 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, if so, he is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.12.2002 ? 3. Alternatively whether plaintiff is entitled for compensation of Rs.20 lakhs from the defendant with interest as prayed for ? 4. Whether the judgment of trial Court needs any interference ? POINT NOs.1 to 4 : 14. After going through the contentions raised by both the parties now it is to be seen that is the evidence adduced by the plaintiff in the trial Court to prove that agreement of sale dated 24.12.2002 is executed by the defendant and he received Rs.12 lakhs as earnest money. 15. According to the plaintiff the document was executed by the defendant and he also received Rs.12 lakhs as earnest money. However, initially the suit was decreed ex parte, plaintiff filed execution petition which was allowed and property was registered by the Court in the name of plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant filed set aside ex parte petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC which was dismissed by the trial Court. Against the same, the defendant filed C.R.P.No.4626 of 2008, and the same was allowed by order dated 18.02.2009 wherein it was observed that during pendency of suit, possession of the plaint schedule property shall be with plaintiff but the same shall not be alienated to any third parties during pendency of the suit. 16. To prove his case, plaintiff relied on Ex.A.1 and he himself was examined as Pw.1. 16. To prove his case, plaintiff relied on Ex.A.1 and he himself was examined as Pw.1. Ex.A.1 is dated 24.12.2002 and Ex.A.2 is the legal notice dated 27.08.2006. There is no dispute that defendant purchased property on 18.12.2002 from his vendor who is the real brother of plaintiff. According to the plaintiff the defendant offered to sell the lands which was purchased by him from the brother of plaintiff for his family and legal necessities for a total consideration of Rs.16,16,125/- @ Rs.70,000/- per acre and though plaintiff showed willingness to pay the balance sale consideration to defendant within agreed period, the defendant refused to receive the same without assigning any reason. 17. According to the plaintiff after registration of the lands, in view of ex parte order, he developed property and on seeing the same the defendant filed set aside petition. The contention of plaintiff is that Ex.A.2 was issued before filing of the suit and the defendant refused to receive the same, according to plaintiff Ex.A.1 was drafted in the presence of five or six persons, whereas in his evidence he admitted that there is no mention in Ex.A.1 that it was executed in the presence of five or six persons. To prove the same, plaintiff also examined Pw.2. Though Pw.2 filed chief affidavit he failed to appear for cross- examination, as such, his evidence was eschewed. Hence, the only evidence available on record is that of Pw.1. 18. The contention of defendant is that he never executed Ex.A.1 in respect of suit schedule lands and never received any amount from the plaintiff. The plaintiff in collusion with his brother from whom he purchased the schedule lands, created Ex.A.1 and they obtained signature on blank papers stating that it requires further registration of property as per new Act. According to the defendant he stopped cultivation over suit lands after receiving court orders and handed over possession to the plaintiff. Further Dw.1 identified his signature on Ex.A.1 when it was confronted to him. As seen from the record defendant admitted his signature on Ex.A.1, whereas contents of the document are denied. Admission of signature proves identification of executant, but when he denies the contents, plaintiff has to prove the same by examining attestors or the scribe of the document, whereas in the present case no attestor was examined. As seen from the record defendant admitted his signature on Ex.A.1, whereas contents of the document are denied. Admission of signature proves identification of executant, but when he denies the contents, plaintiff has to prove the same by examining attestors or the scribe of the document, whereas in the present case no attestor was examined. Further a perusal of Ex.A.1 shows there are no boundaries in the document to identify suit schedule properties and there is no information about the scribe of the document. The scribe of the document is also not examined. Pw.2 was examined in chief but not turned up for cross-examination. Therefore, Pw.2 evidence in chief is not helpful to the plaintiff. When the suit is filed by the plaintiff basing on Ex.A.1, he has to prove the document when contents are denied by the defendant alleging that his signature was obtained by the plaintiff by mis-representation. The main contention of defendant is that there is no evidence to prove that plaintiff paid Rs.12 lakhs as earnest money to him. When such a huge amount is paid to the defendant he would have obtained receipt separately. But there is no such receipt obtained by the plaintiff from the defendant. Mere admission of signature on Ex.A.1 does not prove the contents of document. 19. The plaintiff except examining himself and filing Ex.A.1, he did not examine any other witness to the document to show that it is executed by defendant and he received Rs.12 lakhs. No receipt is filed by the plaintiff to show receipt of the said amount by the defendant. Further the contention of defendant is that his signature was obtained on some blank papers when he purchased the property on 18.12.2002 for registration of the same. Further, when the plaintiff contended that immediately after purchase of the property, the defendant sold the same for his legal necessities, he has to show why the defendant sold the property immediately after purchasing the same, which creates doubt on execution of Ex.A.1. Though the signature was admitted by the defendant, the contents have to be proved. The plaintiff not only failed to prove the contents of said document but also failed to prove payment of Rs.12 lakhs as an earnest money without any receipt from the defendant. Though the signature was admitted by the defendant, the contents have to be proved. The plaintiff not only failed to prove the contents of said document but also failed to prove payment of Rs.12 lakhs as an earnest money without any receipt from the defendant. When the suit for specific performance is filed, plaintiff has to prove that the defendant executed agreement of sale in his favour and he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but in the present case plaintiff failed to prove execution of agreement of sale itself by proving the contents of document and also failed to show from where he got huge amount of Rs.12 lakhs and according to him cash is available with him but there is no proof of income tax returns filed by him for the said amount. As the relief under the specific performance Act is an equitable relief, plaintiff has to prove that he approached the Court with clean hands, whereas in the present case plaintiff failed to prove the same. As such, there is no illegality in the findings of trial Court with regard to Ex.A.1. Further, as the plaintiff failed to prove execution of Ex.A.1 and also payment of Rs.12 lakhs as earnest money, he is not entitled for the alternative relief of damages of Rs.20 lakhs from the defendant. Hence, there is no illegality in the judgment of trial Court and there is no need to interfere with the judgment of trial Court. There are no merits in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly all the points are answered. 20. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.