JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved over the decree and judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit for Specific Performance and granting alternative relief, the plaintiff filed the Appeal Suit in A.S.No.9 of 2022, whereas the Appeal Suit in A.S.No.8 of 2022 was filed by the defendant, challenging the decree and judgment granting alternative relief of refund of the alleged sale advance of Rs.20,00,000/-. 2. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment and the parties are one and the same, these Appeal Suits are disposed of in a common judgment. For the sake of convenient, the parties are described, as per their status and ranking in the trial Court. 3.Brief facts of the plaintiff’s case is as follows:- The suit property was originally owned by the father of the plaintiff and the defendant the late T.V.Srinivasalu Naidu. He died on 07.10.1991 leaving behind his wife Smt.Chinnammal and six children namely, Dhanalakshmi, Devaki, Geetha, Kala, Smt.Raniammal (defendant) and Smt.D.Shanthi (plaintiff). For the legal heirs above, each is entitled to a share. The defendant, to meet out some of her urgent financial needs and also to settle her sundry loan dues, has decided to sell her 1/7 th undivided share at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per cent and total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.24,60,000/- for an extent of 2.46 acre of agricultural land and the defendant entered into an agreement of sale and executed the said agreement in favour of the plaintiff on 03.03.2010 and she received an advance of Rs.20,00,000/-. It was agreed by the parties that the sale should be completed within a period of four months. Though time is not the essence of the contract as per the terms of the agreement, even before the agreement period of four months, the plaintiff approached the defendant during the last week of June 2010 with the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,60,000/- and requested the defendant to receive the balance sale price and to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the suit property, as agreed, in favour of the plaintiff. However, the defendant citing some personal reasons informed the plaintiff that she will receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,60,000/- after two weeks and execute and register the sale deed. During the second week of July 2010, the plaintiff again approached the defendant with the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,60,000/-. However, the defendant citing some personal reasons informed the plaintiff that she will receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,60,000/- after two weeks and execute and register the sale deed. During the second week of July 2010, the plaintiff again approached the defendant with the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,60,000/-. However, the defendant upon one pretext or another, postponed the receipt of the balance sale price. Finally, the defendant informed the plaintiff that her husband and son were objecting to the sale of the suit property and subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had attempted to sell the property. Hence, legal notice was issued to the defendant on 25.07.2010. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is ready and willing to purchase the property. Hence, the suit was filed for Specific Performance and for Permanent Injunction. 4. It is the contention of the defendant that except admitted the relationship between them, the defendant never executed any sale agreement. The sale agreement was fabricated and forged by the plaintiff. It is also the contention of the defendant that the defendant’s mother Tmt.Chinnammal had executed a registered Settlement Deed dated 22.02.2010 in favour of the defendant’s son Mr.P.Sampath and thereby th settled 1.05 acres of land being her undivided 1/7 share in the properties referred as above. The plaintiff and the other four sisters are very much aggrieved by the act of the mother's defendant and started accusing the defendant stating that she had prevailed upon the mother and managed to obtain the settlement deed dated 22.02.2010 in the name of his son. As a result, the relationship between the defendant and her sisters including the plaintiff got strained. With a view to invalidate the settlement deed dated 22.02.2010, the plaintiff and her four sisters harassed the mother and forced her to execute a Cancellation Deed dated 23.07.2010. Even after the execution of the cancellation deed dated 23.07.2010, the mother continues to be affectionate towards the defendant and her son. The plaintiff and her sisters, who came to know that the cancellation deed is not valid in law, conspired together and decided to seek vengeance against the defendant and the alleged agreement deed dated 03.03.2010 has been fabricated. 5. As far as the Item No.2 of the suit schedule property is concerned, it has already been settled by the plaintiff to her husband. 5. As far as the Item No.2 of the suit schedule property is concerned, it has already been settled by the plaintiff to her husband. On 02.03.2010, the mother Chinnammal had executed a settlement deed in favour of her daughters including the plaintiff and the defendant measuring to an extent of 0.77cents. Further, on 02.03.2010 itself, the plaintiff and the defendant along with their sisters and mother had executed a registered sale deed dated 02.03.2010 in favour of the defendant's husband Mr.R.Prakasam. Most of the stamp paper used for these two documents were purchased from a particular stamp vendor at Ponneri. Whereas, the stamp vendor on which the suit agreement dated 03.03.2010, has been fabricated is a different person. Hence, the defendant opposed the suit. 6. Based on the pleadings stated in the plaint and the written statement, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- (1) Whether the sale agreement dated 03.03.2010 is entered between the plaintiff and the defendant is true or not? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for specific performance against the defendant? (3) Whether this case is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? (4) To what other relief? 7. On the side of the plaintiff, PW-1 to PW-3 were examined and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the defendant herself was examined as DW1 and 16 documents were marked Ex.B1 to ExB16. On the side of the Court, Ex.C1 and C2 were marked. 8. The trial Court after considering the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 has found that the agreement was executed on 03.03.2010. However, the trial Court, without framing issues regarding the readiness and willingness and without discussing passing of consideration, granted a decree for an alternative relief to the plaintiff by directing the defendant to return back the advance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% to the plaintiff from 03.03.2010 till the repayment of the money. 9. The plaintiff who challenges the decree for dismissing the suit for specific performance, contended before this Court though his Counsel Mr.V.Chandrakanthan that once the agreement has been clearly established and the defendant's defence is found to be false, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to the relief of specific performance. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The trial Court has not taken note of the said aspect. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit for specific performance. At any event, the trial Court has granted the alternative relief, though it was not asked. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel is that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the specific performance, being an equitable remedy, is not maintainable, then, the Court granting alternative relief has to be confirmed. 10. Per contra, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submitted that though in Ex.A1(sale agreement), the signature of the appellant is true, the fact remains that the document has to be fabricated and there were several transactions entered between their family members on 03.03.2010. The documents filed on the side of the defendant clearly show that the documents, which were marked as Ex.B1 to ExB4 were executed by the family members on 02.03.2010. Therefore, the signatures obtained in those transactions have been utilised to create a forged document. The defence theory that since the mother of the parties had executed the settlement deed in favour of the defendant’s son in respect of th her 1/7 undivided share and also the other properties have been transferred to the defendant’s husband, the plaintiff and other sisters were unhappy with such transactions and they created a document and filed the suit as if a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- has been paid on the date of the sale agreement. 11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that fabrication of the document is more probablised for the simple reason that the second item of the property for an extent of 1.51 acres has already been transferred in the name of the defendant’s husband. Therefore, including that property in the sale agreement is highly improbable and paying such a huge amount is against the normal human conduct. Further, for the so-called huge payment, no material was placed before this Court; the audit statement was created only after the examination of PW-1. The evidence of PW-1 clearly shows that she is not aware of any such proceedings; and it was only her husband, who brought out all the documents. Further, for the so-called huge payment, no material was placed before this Court; the audit statement was created only after the examination of PW-1. The evidence of PW-1 clearly shows that she is not aware of any such proceedings; and it was only her husband, who brought out all the documents. The parting with such a huge amount of Rs.20,00,000/- has not been established by any convincing evidence and therefore, the decree granting alternative relief has to be set aside. 12. According to him, in the evidence of DW1 (Tmt.Raniammal), though the nature of transactions was not denied during her cross examination, not even a suggestion was put to DW-1 that she has received such huge amount. The trial Court has not gone into this aspect and granted alternative relief. Hence, he prayed that the decree granting alternative relief has to be set aside and the judgment rejecting the specific performance has to be upheld. 13. In the light of the above submissions, now the point arise for consideration in these appeals are as follows:- (1) Whether Ex.P1 (sale agreement) was executed for sale of the property? (2) Whether the plaintiff has established the payment of Rs.20,00,000/- as advance to the defendant on the date of agreement itself? (3) Whether the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform her part of contract? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the alternative relief for refund of advance amount? 14. Point Nos. 1 and 2: The suit has been filed to enforce Ex.A1 (sale agreement), dated th 03.03.2010. The specific case of the plaintiff that the 1/7 undivided share of the defendant agreed to be sold to the plaintiff by Ex.A1 sale agreement dated 03.03.2010 for a total sale consideration of Rs.24,60,000//- by receiving an advance of Rs.20,00,0000/- on the same date. Whereas, it is the contention of the defendant that the sale agreement has been fabricated by the plaintiff along with the other sisters of the defendant, since the plaintiff mother has settled an extent of 1.05 acre of land in favour of the defendant’s son. That apart, some other properties also sold in the name of the defendant’s husband. Only in order to realise the value of the property, settled in favour of the defendant’s son. The sale agreement has been created. No doubt, initially, the burden is always on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the sale. That apart, some other properties also sold in the name of the defendant’s husband. Only in order to realise the value of the property, settled in favour of the defendant’s son. The sale agreement has been created. No doubt, initially, the burden is always on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the sale. The plaintiff herself has stated that the sale deed was executed. The signature found in Ex.A1 is also established by PW-2 and PW-3. One of the sister of the plaintiff is also stated as if the document has been executed. 15. As far as the signature is concerned, though the signature is denied, the same has been clearly established. However, the fact remains that whether merely proving the signature amounts to the execution of the document. Though PW-1 in her evidence would contend that the document th was executed by the defendant for the sale of her 1/7 undivided share. 16. On careful perusal of the evidence of the parties, particularly, the admission made by them and the circumstances brought out through these admissions, this Court is of the view that the defendant has probablise the case. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to establish the passing of consideration under Ex.A1. When the evidence of PW-1 carefully seen, according to her, in both items 1 and 2, the defendant has executed the sale agreement. However, the fact remains that item No.2, which pertains to an extent of 1.51 acres of the land is not belonged to the defendant on the date of the so- called agreement. In fact, the plaintiff's mother settled the said property in favour of defendant's husband as early as on 07.08.2008. Ex.P12-settlement deed has also been filed in this regard. Therefore, it is hard to believe that the plaintiff was not aware of these transactions, which happened in the year 2008 itself in favour of the defendant’s husband. Further it is also improbable to contend that such a huge amount was paid for the property solely based on the patta, especially, when the property did not actually stand in the name of the defendant at the relevant point of time. It is also noted that it is the specific defence of the defendant that since her mother th settled her 1/7 share in favour of her son, the plaintiff and all other sisters are unhappy about the same. It is also noted that it is the specific defence of the defendant that since her mother th settled her 1/7 share in favour of her son, the plaintiff and all other sisters are unhappy about the same. To compensate for the property the agreement came to be created. It is relevant to note that on 02.03.2010, just prior to the suit agreement Ex.A1 there were several documents executed between the parties, which were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4. The plaintiff also admits in her evidence that the defendant has sold three cents of land to the plaintiff and her sisters and also the plaintiff’s son in S.No.189/11. Thereafter, the plaintiff also sold another six cents on the same day under Ex.B1. That apart, the other sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant’s husband on the same day. Similarly, the release deed was also executed in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.B3 on the same day. That apart, under Ex.B4, an extent of 77 cents was given to the plaintiff, her sisters and the defendant by their mother. Therefore, when several transactions took place and various documents were executed on 02.03.2010, it is highly improbable to contend that the sale agreement was executed on the very next day including the property, which is not belonging to the first defendant. Therefore, though the signature was originally established in Exhibit A1, the agreement itself was entirely denied. Therefore, merely signature is alone proved, this will not however absolve the plaintiff from proving the payment of huge money, particularly, taking note of the various transactions and the fact that the title of the property was not even verified. 17. It is relevant to note that though it is a stand of the plaintiff that she has paid Rs.20,00,000/- by way of cash and she was an income tax assessee, Ex.B7 was filed on 27.12.2010, only after her cross examination. While the first page is handwritten, the second page contains a statement prepared by the Auditor, the authenticity of which has not been established. Ex.B7 shows Income Tax Form stating that the income from the salary is Rs.1,99,000/- and the income from the lorry business is Rs.42,000/-, totalling Rs.2,41,000/- as of 31.03.2010. Subsequently, the entries were made indicating that advance for the land was paid as on 31.03.2010. Ex.B7 shows Income Tax Form stating that the income from the salary is Rs.1,99,000/- and the income from the lorry business is Rs.42,000/-, totalling Rs.2,41,000/- as of 31.03.2010. Subsequently, the entries were made indicating that advance for the land was paid as on 31.03.2010. However, this entry has not been authenticated and only the auditor's signature was found in that statement. The Auditor was not examined before this Court. 18. Be that as it may, PW-1 evidence clearly shows that she was not aware of the entire transactions. According to her, her son paid Rs.8,00,000/- and the remaining Rs.1,50,000/- was paid through a cheque and the remaining amounts were withdrawn from her son's bank account. Therefore, the entire Rs.20,00,000/- was mobilised and paid. Absolutely there are no material whatsoever placed before the trial Court to prove the payment of Rs.20,00,000/-. It is also admitted by the plaintiff that she is not even in a position to explain the different between the income statement. According to her, all the particulars were given to the auditor by her husband. It is also admitted that the second item belonged to the defendant’s husband and prior to the agreement she had not obtained any encumbrance. Similarly, she also admitted that the suit property was only shown as thorn plants and lacked irrigation facility. Though PW-3 (Smt.Devagi) supported the plaintiff during her cross examination she clearly admitted that she does not know where Ex.A1 was prepared. According to her, only the plaintiff’s husband prepared Ex.A1 and she has not seen the document. She signed it only on the instructions of the plaintiff and others. Her evidence also creates doubt, particularly, regarding the passing of consideration. When the family members were aware of the fact that the title would be valid only after registering the document and several documents were executed on 02.03.2010, it is highly improbable to contend that such a huge advance amount was paid without verifying the document and the title. Particularly, the property, a major portion of which did not belong to the defendant also included in the Agreement. This fact clearly probablise the defence theory that as the settlement in favour of her son was made excluding the other legal heirs. This agreement was created subsequently. PW-1's evidence clearly shows that the defendant was not even present when the agreement was prepared. This fact clearly probablise the defence theory that as the settlement in favour of her son was made excluding the other legal heirs. This agreement was created subsequently. PW-1's evidence clearly shows that the defendant was not even present when the agreement was prepared. According to her, Ex.A1 was prepared in the Advocate Office at Mogappair. She does not know where the stamp papers were purchased; only her husband was aware of that. PW-1 also feign ignorance about the stamp papers purchased and where they were purchased. Furthermore, she did not know from which bank, Rs.20,00,000/- was withdrawn. Only her husband alone is aware of it. Though she has stated that she was prepared to produce the bank statement to prove the withdrawal, such statement is not seen in the light of the day. 19. Therefore, considering the nature of the transactions, which entered between the parties; admittedly, the settlement was executed by mother of the parties in favour of the defendant’s son in respect of her th undivided 1/7 share; the nature of the document exchanged and executed between the parties on 02.03.2010; the very next day paying such a huge amount; even without verifying the title of the second item of the property, which has already been transferred in favour of the defendant’s husband in the year 2018 itself, the payment of such huge amount is highly improbable. Further, the evidence of PW-1 shows her ignorance about the entire transactions, she is not in a position to prove the nature of the bank withdrawals, to prove the payment of Rs.20,00,000/-. Therefore, merely signature of the defendant alone is proved, especially, when the fabrication of the document has been probablised by various circumstances, as referred above. Mere proving of the signature, in view of the this Court, will not amount to the execution of the document. The execution implies reading the contents of the document, understanding it and signing it. If all three requirements are met, it can be held that the document has been executed by the person. On the contrary, if only the signature is established, and there are circumstances and probablities brought on record by the defendant to prove fabrication, mere proof of the signature, the execution cannot be presumed. If all three requirements are met, it can be held that the document has been executed by the person. On the contrary, if only the signature is established, and there are circumstances and probablities brought on record by the defendant to prove fabrication, mere proof of the signature, the execution cannot be presumed. Therefore, unless the execution, coupled with the passing of consideration is clearly established in this matter, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is also not entitled to return of the amount, as there is no evidence to prove the payment. These aspects have not been discussed by the trial Court. Accordingly, these points are answered. 20. Point No.3 & 4: As far as the specific performance is concerned, when the very same document itself is fabricated and not intended for the sale of property and this doubt is apparent in the document. Based on such document, equitable relief as specific performance cannot be granted. However, the contention of the plaintiff that she approached the defendant for payment of the balance sale consideration with ready cash; and that the defendant postponed the issue, leading the plaintiff to wait for the payment of balance amount, is highly improbable, when the parties are at loggerheads. The plaintiff once again waiting to extend the time is also highly improbable. In any event, the readiness and willingness have not been established. Once the very genuineness of the agreement has not been established, the relief of Specific Performance cannot be granted. Accordingly, this point is answered. 21. The decree and judgement of the trial Court dismissing the suit in respect of the specific performance is confirmed and the decree and judgment of the trial for granting alternative relief of refund of advance amount Rs.20,00,000/- is interfered and the same is set aside. 22. In the result, the Appeal Suit in A.S. No. 8 of 2022 is allowed and the Appeal Suit in A.S. No. 9 of 2022 is dismissed. The decree and judgment of the trial Court viz., IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in O.S. No. 108 of 2010 dated 19.08.2021 is dismissed in entirety. Considering the relationship between the parties, no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.