The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is a proof of execution of the agreement Ex.A.1 and the handwriting expert also gave evidence and, therefore, when once the document said to have been established has proved, the Courts below have erred in holding that the contents are not proved and there is no proof that the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to Manmada Rao. He relied on a decision reported in Dattatraya Vs. Ranganath Gopalrao Kawathekar ([1] ) . As can be seen from the above judgment, the contentions raised by the counsel that when once a plea of forgery is taken and once the execution is established, the contents should be deemed to have been proved as the executant has got knowledge, cannot be taken as absolute rule of law since in para No.5, the Court has envisaged the circumstances under which the party is also to prove the contents and also to establish that the party has knowledge of the contents. It is to be mentioned in the above case the Court was dealing with the partition list between the brothers. But, in this case, the agreement between the parties is for payment of money on the pretext that the plaintiff has paid some money to one Manmadha Rao. It is to be noted an agreement without consideration is not valid and enforceable. Therefore, in order to enforce the agreement, it is the duty of the plaintiff to show that as per the terms of the agreement, he has paid the money to Manmadha Rao. In the absence of such evidence, the contents in the document cannot be taken into consideration. In this case, the plaintiff has not examined Manmadha Rao nor produced any document to prove the said payment of Rs.2 lakhs to Manmadha Rao. Both the courts on concurrent findings of fact came to a conclusion that the consideration under Ex.A-1 agreement has not been proved and consequently, the agreement is not enforceable. There is no substantial question of law to be entertained in this Second Appeal and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed.
