defendant-appellant yet it was stated to be the one being executed qua security of the loan amount. No direct and cogent evidence or any other relevant material has been placed on record to prove that the defendant had re-paid the loan amount alleged to have been taken in pursuance of agreement to sell dated 13.6.2000. If at all, the appellant-defendant had actually paid the amount, he would have got any witness examined to prove his case. After execution of the agreement to sell, vendors often backs out of their words and do not honor their commitments qua performance of their part of contract, owing to the increase of the prices or any other reason. It is such kind of case where the defendant after admission of his signatures on the agreement of sale though alleged to have been executed in lieu of security but failed to substantiate his claim. Even the attesting witness was subjected to a detailed cross examination but nothing contrary was found. Moreover, the defendant failed to prove his pleaded case in written statement qua taking of loan amount and discharged the liability. On the other hand, it has been proved on record that the respondent-plaintiff had always been willing and ready to perform his part of contract, in the light of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. On the basis of aforesaid facts, both the courts below, in my considered view, have rightly appreciated the evidence while decreeing the suit.
