JUDGMENT : (ANU SIVARAMAN, J.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree passed in Com.O.S.No.4029/2017 dated 22.05.2023 passed by the LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-88) ('Commercial Court' for short). 2. We have heard Shri. Anil Shekar K.S, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri. Shivayogi B. Hallur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The contentions of the appellants are as follows :- The defendant in a suit for specific performance of a Joint Development Agreement ('JDA' for short) dated 08.05.2013 is the appellant herein. The appellant was the owner in possession of the property having a total extent of 30 feet x 70 feet situated on 3 rd Cross, Muneshwara Block, Bengaluru. The property was mortgaged to the Padmashree Credit Co-operative Society. The JDA was entered into by which the respondent agreed to construct a residential apartment on ground and three floors consisting of eight flats in the portion of the property measuring 30 feet x 50 feet as consideration, the respondent agreed to pay Rs.1,42,00,000/- to the appellant in consideration of the permission to put up the apartment in the said portion of the property. Further, it was agreed that the respondent would also put up a residential house consisting of ground plus three floors, with each floor measuring 600 sq. ft. in the remaining property measuring 30 feet x 20 feet. It was also agreed that the cost of construction and expenditure to obtain permissions to put up the construction of the residential house would be deducted from the agreed consideration of Rs.1,42,00,000/-. A schedule for payment of the amounts was also provided in the agreement. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the Society by way of cheques and the entire property mortgaged by the defendant was redeemed by the plaintiff. However, GPA was not executed in favour of the plaintiff as agreed. It was contended that the plaintiff had paid a further amount of Rs.75,50,000/- by way of Banker's cheque and demand drafts on different dates and spent a sum of Rs.62,00,000/- for construction of the building on the appellant's share of the land. However, GPA was not executed in favour of the plaintiff as agreed. It was contended that the plaintiff had paid a further amount of Rs.75,50,000/- by way of Banker's cheque and demand drafts on different dates and spent a sum of Rs.62,00,000/- for construction of the building on the appellant's share of the land. It is submitted that pursuant to the specific agreements between the parties, the construction was made as one building consisting of four one bedroom apartments, which fell to the share of the land owner/appellant and four two bedroom apartments, which could be sold by the plaintiff - builder. However, after construction of the appellant's share of the built-up area was complete, the appellant refused to perform her contractual obligations. The plaintiff lodged a complaint before the Vyalikaval Police Station on 10.11.2016 and an injunction suit was filed by the appellant as O.S.No.402/2017 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. Further, the police complaints were also filed. It is contended that the defendant also obtained an ex-parte order of ad-interim temporary injunction against the plaintiff by suppressing true facts and it has therefore become necessary to seek the specific performance of the agreement between the parties. 4. The appellant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the contentions and stating that she is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the house property bearing BBMP Khata, PID No.99/106/1/1 of 3 rd Cross, Muneshwara Block, P.G.Halli, Bengaluru and that she had filed a suit for permanent injunction as O.S.No.402/2017 before the City Civil Court and there is an order of injunction in force. It is contended that the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant were only loan transactions and that all amounts except Rs.5,00,000/- had been returned to the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiff had obtained signed blank cheques, blank e-stamp papers and white papers and had created documents to harass the defendant and her family members. The Commercial Court framed the issues, considered the pleadings and the evidence adduced. 5. The issues framed by the Commercial Court read as follows:- "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with the defendant on 08.05.2013? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that, he has constructed the apartment building on the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he has paid a sum of Rs.75,50,000/- to the defendant? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves that he had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with the defendant on 08.05.2013? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that, he has constructed the apartment building on the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he has paid a sum of Rs.75,50,000/- to the defendant? 4. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he has complied with all the terms and conditions of the Joint Development Agreement dated 08.05.2013? 5. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is entitle for the suit relief? 6. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff has approached the defendant in order to help her financially for the purpose of construction? 7. Whether the defendant proves that she has paid the amount received from the plaintiff along with interest and there is a balance of Rs.5,00,000/- which is to be paid to the plaintiff? 8. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff has obtained certain documents from the defendant and her family members such as blank cheques of Kotak Mahindra Bank, "E" Stamp Papers, signed white empty papers? 9. Whether the defendant proves that she is in possession of the suit schedule property? 6. The plaintiff/respondent herein got himself examined as PW.1 and marked the documents as Exs.P.1 to P132, while the GPA holder of the defendant/appellant herein as well as her son were examined as DW.1 and DW.2 and Exs.D1 to D120 were marked. 7. After considering the contentions advanced, the Commercial Court noticed that the JDA was dated 08.05.2013. The Commercial Court found on comparison of the admitted signature of the defendant with the signature in Ex.P1-JDA that the signatures are similar. The appellant's husband who was examined as her GPA holder had admitted his and his wife's signature in Ex.P1. Further, it was found that the first complaint with regard to the execution of the JDA on blank stamp paper was raised for the first time by Ex.P10 on 20.05.2017. The Commercial Court also notices that no such contention was taken by the appellant in her plaint in O.S.No.402/2017. Further, DW.1 had admitted that they had not stated about taking of their signature on blank papers in any earlier proceedings including the Police complaints given by them. It was therefore found that Ex.P1-JDA had been duly executed by the appellant. The Commercial Court also notices that no such contention was taken by the appellant in her plaint in O.S.No.402/2017. Further, DW.1 had admitted that they had not stated about taking of their signature on blank papers in any earlier proceedings including the Police complaints given by them. It was therefore found that Ex.P1-JDA had been duly executed by the appellant. Further, the claim of the plaintiff that he had paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant's husband- Dhanpal on 23.02.2013 and had made the payments to the Padmashree Credit Co-operative Society were held to be proved by deposition of the plaintiff as supported by the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff in the State Bank of Mysuru, Boopasandra Branch. The payments made to the Commissioner, BBMP, on 08.04.2014, was also taken into account by the Commercial Court to hold that the contention that it was a credit transaction between the parties could not be believed and that the JDA had been entered into and acted upon by the parties. Accepting the contentions of the plaintiff, the Commercial Court decreed the suit with costs and directed the appellant to execute the Sale Deed within two months. A permanent injunction was also granted as sought for. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant had obtained financial help for the defendant to the tune of Rs.73,50,000/- for the purpose of the construction of the building in her property. It is stated that the amount was repaid on several dates in cash and that it was on the signed blank cheque and signed e- stamp papers which were obtained from the appellant as security for the loan transaction that the JDA had been executed. It is stated that the entire construction was carried out by the appellant and that the contentions of the plaintiff were liable to be rejected. 9. It is further submitted that the JDA does not contain the schedule for construction of the apartments and that the agreement is made in vague terms. There is no clause in the agreement which mentions about execution of sale deed. As there is no interest created for the builder in the property, no relief for specific performance can be granted as per Section 14(3)(c)(ii) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is also submitted that the JDA, Completion Certificate, Rental Agreement are all created and forged documents. As there is no interest created for the builder in the property, no relief for specific performance can be granted as per Section 14(3)(c)(ii) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is also submitted that the JDA, Completion Certificate, Rental Agreement are all created and forged documents. It is agreed by PW.1 himself that no signature was taken on the date written in ink in the JDA. It is further submitted that the appellant was financially capable of bearing the cost of construction. The total cost of construction was Rs.2.5 crores. Documents produced at Exs.D34 to D.36 shows the financial capacity of the family of the appellant. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that he had obtained various permissions from BBMP towards construction and has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,42,00,000/- as per the JDA and completed the construction in the year 2015. It is further submitted that the appellant took time by one or the other reason to put her signature on the JDA and hence the respondent could not obtain the signature as on the date which is written in ink in the JDA. The appellant has signed on all pages of the JDA. The respondent's signature in the last page shows that the appellant has signed the JDA as the first party. It is further stated that the appellant did not stand as a witness in the Commercial Court, where a presumption would arise that she had entered into the JDA, instead her GPA holder was made a witness and it is clear that he has no knowledge about the said JDA. 11. We have considered the contentions advanced. We have also given our anxious consideration to the pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence on record. The only question we are called upon to consider is whether the judgment and decree of the Commercial Court requires an interference in this appeal in the light of the pleadings and the evidence let-in. The JDA was one executed on 08.05.2013. It is the case of the plaintiff that the construction was carried out in accordance with the sanctioned plan which provided for one consolidated building instead of two separate buildings. This aspect is not disputed by the appellants either before the Commercial Court or in this appeal. The JDA was one executed on 08.05.2013. It is the case of the plaintiff that the construction was carried out in accordance with the sanctioned plan which provided for one consolidated building instead of two separate buildings. This aspect is not disputed by the appellants either before the Commercial Court or in this appeal. The Commercial Court had specifically come to the conclusion that no complaint with regard to obtaining of signatures in any blank e-stamp paper or plain paper was ever raised by the appellant even before the Police when the matter was raised for the first time. It is only in Ex.P10 legal notice dated 20.05.2017 that such a contention is raised for the first time, that too, when there were admittedly criminal and legal proceedings between the parties before that date. Even in the plaint in the injunction suit filed by her, the appellant had not raised such a plea. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the Commercial Court that the said plea was an after thought and could not be accepted cannot be said to be erroneous. 12. Further, the appellant did not choose to adduce evidence and it was her GPA holder, who is her husband, who had taken that stand. DW.2 in his cross-examination had admitted that an amount of Rs.73,50,000/- was received from the plaintiff. However, the contention was that the said amount had been repaid to the plaintiff. However, the defendants could not adduce any evidence to show that they had the financial capacity to repay such huge amounts out of their own funds. The plaintiff on the other hand had adduced reliable evidence to show the payment of amounts by way of cheque and cash. Further, the payment of electricity, water and maintenance bills, the payment of amounts towards obtaining necessary sanction from the statutory authorities and payment of property tax as also the bills in support of the claim with regard to cost of construction of the building in the share of the defendant have all been produced by the plaintiff before the Commercial Court. The said oral and documentary evidence has been scrupulously examined by the Commercial Court and the Court has arrived at the conclusion that the JDA was duly executed and that the amounts have been paid by the plaintiff in pursuance thereof. The said oral and documentary evidence has been scrupulously examined by the Commercial Court and the Court has arrived at the conclusion that the JDA was duly executed and that the amounts have been paid by the plaintiff in pursuance thereof. The Commercial Court also found that the contention of the appellant that substantial amounts were repaid was not substantiated by any evidence. 13. Further, the payment of the amounts was proved by the plaintiff before the Commercial Court by producing his Bank accounts which could not be discredited by the appellant. The appellant also had admitted that an amount of Rs.73,50,000/- had been paid by the plaintiff to her or her husband but the contention was that the said amount had been repaid in cash. The plaintiff had also succeeded in adducing evidence before the Commercial Court to show that substantial amounts had been spent by the plaintiff towards the construction of the appellant's share of built-up area in the building constructed on the property in question. 14. The condition in the JDA was for executing a General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff for the purpose of selling the apartments constructed in the plaintiff's share of the property. However, apparently it is long after the construction was complete that the suit was filed. 15. In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the contention of the appellant that the decree for specific performance could not have been issued cannot be accepted. We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case and the material, which is on record, the finding of the Commercial Court that the appellant was liable to execute the GPA for the sale of defendant's share of the property was indeed just and proper. We find no ground to interfere in the appeal. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.