Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. I have carefully considered the said submission and have gone through the case file.

13. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that no agreement was executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs and only Rs.50,000/- were advanced by the plaintiffs to defendant No.1. The plaintiffs have taken the signatures of defendant Nos.1 and 2 on blank papers and have used the same for procuring the agreement. That being a finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below cannot be allowed to be interferred more so when there is nothing contrary to that finding on the record. There is nothing on the file that the said findings are the result of misreading and misinterpreting the evidence. Scribe, writer of the document has not been produced. The spacing of signatures of defendant Nos.1 and 2 clearly shows that blank papers have been used for procuring the document. Admittedly, defendant No.3 is not a signatory to the agreement and as such no decree against defendant No.3 can be passed more so when defendant Nos.1 and 2 are not the holder of power of attorney on behalf of defendant No.3. The trial Court has appreciated whole of the evidence on the file. The First Appellate Court has re-appreciated the evidence and reached to the conclusion that plaintiffs have failed to prove the execution of the agreement but has simply advanced the amount of Rs.50,000/- for business by the defendants.