Law: Contract, Act, 1872

Section: 14

  Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 14-Person signing document illiterate-Onus lies on party relying on document to prove beyond doubt that signature was obtained after document had been properly explained to person signing.   Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 16, 17 & 19-Contract of sale-Party admitting execution of document but denying payment of consideration-Onus lies on him to prove non-payment of Con sideration-Party admitting signature on document but contending that being illiterate he had signed document in ignorance of its con tents-Onus to prove valid execution of document lies on person relying on it.   Mirza Gorgani v. Bhola Mal Nibal Chand A I R 1934 Lah. 293 ref.  JUDGMENT   WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This regular first appeal is from the judgment of the II Assistant Judge, Hyderabad, in Suit No. 58 of 1960 dated the 9th of September 1960. By this judgment the learned Subordinate Court passed a decree for specific perform ance of the contract or in the alternative for the refund of Rs. 8,000 alleged to have been paid to the Appellant.   The dispute between the parties is in respect of 40 acres of land out of 80 in Deb.Hundrwah, Tapa Gadap, Taluka Thatta, District Thatta, belonging to the appellant. In the year 1944 the above-mentioned unsurveyed land was granted to the appellant on the payment of Rs. 12,000 by the Government of Sind. It is alleged that on the 20th of October 1956, the appellant agreed to sell to the respondent the above-mentioned 40 acres of land for the price of Rs. 8,500. According to the agreement of sale, Rs. 8,000 were paid to the appellant at the time of the execution of the agreement and the balance of Rs. 500 was to be paid after obtaining the sanction for sale from the Revenue Authorities concerned and on the registration of the sale-deed. The respondent, on the breach of the contract, brought Suit No. 248 of 1959 in the Court of the First Class Sub-Judge, Hyderabad, for specific performance of the contract or in the alternative for the refund of the amount paid by him, and further claimed a sum of Rs. 1,500 as damages.   The appellant resisted the suit. He pleaded that he had neither agreed to…