5.Both the courts below after considering the rival pleadings of the parties and the evidence let in by them found that the suit pronote is not genuine and that the plaintiff has not proved the same in a manner known to law. It has also been pointed out that there was some correction made in the suit agreement with respect to the Survey Number of the suit properties as well as the description of the boundary of the same. It is further pointed out by the courts below that the scribe of Ex.A1 viz., P.W.3 has specifically admitted that he typed Ex.A1 only after the plaintiff, first defendant and witnesses signed the papers. Therefore, the courts below pointed out that when the first defendant denied the execution of Ex.A1 and claimed to be a forged one, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to examine the signature of Ex.A1 through an expert. Even with regard to the question of readiness and willingness, both the courts below pointed out that the conduct of the plaintiff did not show that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as he himself as PW1, during his cross-examination, categorically admitted that at the time of execution of Ex.A1, he has no means to pay the balance sale consideration and also to pay the stamp fee. Further, the lower Appellate Court pointed out that there was no pleading as required under section 16(3) of the Specific Relief Act indicating the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff. Therefore, by pointing out all these vital aspects, both the courts dismissed the suit.
