Counsel for the appellant submits that admittedly, parties are step brothers. The will dated 28.01.1998, has not been denied by the respondents. As a result, there was no plausible reason for the appellant to have executed an agreement to sell with respect to the land that had been bequeathed to him by the will dated 28.01.1998. The story set up in the plaint is fanciful and therefore, points to a fraud perpetuated by the respondents. It is argued that the family partition mark 'Y' was admittedly, executed on the same day as the alleged agreement to sell. Therefore, the case set up by the appellant that he was duped into executing this agreement, should have been accepted by the courts below. It is further argued that the appellant could not step into the witness box as he had lost vision of one eye and during the pendency of the suit lost the use of his second eye. His prayer for being examined on commission, was rejected by the trial court, as was his application for leading additional evidence and eventually the evidence was closed by order, thus, declining to the appellant an adequate opportunity to prove his case. It is argued that the trial court should have granted the appellant an opportunity to prove his case, instead of closing evidence by order.
