examined all the three witnesses to Ex.P-1 – agreement to sale. They have categorically stated that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 entered into agreement to sale and the plaintiff paid ₹ 25,000/- as earnest money and promised to pay ₹ 2,000/-. On behalf of defendant No.1, they were cross-examined to elicit that the blank stamp paper was signed by him and it was handed-over to the plaintiff which he returned the agreement subsequently and got the sign of three witnesses Manglu (PW-1), Khamhan (PW-2) & Triloki Prasad (PW-3) on the same subsequently. But, all these three witnesses have categorically denied the fact that it was signed on blank paper and it was given to the plaintiff, rather they have clearly stated that the agreement was entered into between the parties and the plaintiff paid ₹ 25,000/- to defendant No.1 and in acceptance of the same, defendant No.1 signed the agreement to sale Ex.P-1 which the trial Court has also accepted and granted decree finding readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to pay the remaining part of consideration and get the sale deed executed as provided under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Defendant No.1 has taken the plea that it was a blank paper and he has signed on the blank stamp paper and handed-over to the plaintiff to be returned after refund of loan amount to him which he has already returned and therefore, no decree for specific performance or decree for earnest money can be granted in favour of the plaintiff.
