signature found in Ex.A1 is one and the same, but the signature found in the alleged endorsement totally differs from the admitted signature of the defendant. Therefore, the courts below rightly held that the alleged endorsement is fabricated one, however, since the signature tallies with the defendant's signature, the sale agreement was treated as valid one. As per the recitals of the agreement, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was received as advance by the defendant, but the alleged endorsement fabricated by the plaintiff, which disentitles his claim for the relief of specific performance as rightly observed by the trial judge. But, the first appellate judge modified the same with the direction to refund the advance amount holding that Ex.A1 sale agreement is valid. Moreover, the first appellate judge awarded compoundable interest and the same was objected by the defendant by preferring this Second Appeal. As rightly pointed out by the appellant's counsel, the conduct of the party is to be taken into whole. Accordingly, he fabricated the endorsement as if the defendant received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and signed on the back side of the agreement, but it was declared as fabricated one as per the forensic report. Therefore, the plaintiff used the alleged agreement for unlawful gain, but without considering that,
