Signature on a blank paper does not prove contract execution; surrounding evidence can support specific performance if proved.

Mere admission of a signature on a blank paper does not, by itself, prove execution of a later-completed agreement to sell; execution requires evidence that the document was completed and signed with an intention to be bound. The burden remains on the party asserting execution, though surrounding circumstances may support a presumption that must be tested on the facts. On the evidence, the plaintiff established execution, passing of consideration, readiness and willingness, and entitlement to specific performance, while the defence of a loan and signed security papers was not proved. The decree refusing specific performance was set aside and specific performance was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether mere admission of signature on a blank paper, without more, amounts to admission of execution of the agreement to sell. (ii) Whether the plaintiff proved execution of the agreement, passing of consideration, readiness and willingness, and entitlement to specific performance.

Issue (i): Whether mere admission of signature on a blank paper, without more, amounts to admission of execution of the agreement to sell.

Analysis: Execution of a written instrument requires more than proof of a signature; it requires proof that the signature was affixed to a completed document with the intention to be bound by it. A signature on a blank paper does not, by itself, establish execution of the later-filled document. The burden initially lies on the party asserting execution, though the evidentiary burden may shift depending on the evidence adduced. A presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act may arise from the surrounding circumstances, but it is not conclusive and must be tested on the facts of each case.

Conclusion: Mere admission of signature on a blank paper does not amount to admission of execution of the agreement.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff proved execution of the agreement, passing of consideration, readiness and willingness, and entitlement to specific performance.

Analysis: On the evidence, the attesting witnesses supported the plaintiff's case that the agreement was prepared and signed after its contents were settled. The defence version of a loan transaction and use of signed papers as security was not satisfactorily established. The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence on execution and consideration, found that the plaintiff had the necessary funds, and held that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Since the contract was proved and no sufficient ground was shown to refuse equitable relief, specific performance was the appropriate relief.

Conclusion: The plaintiff proved the agreement and was entitled to a decree for specific performance.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decree refusing specific performance was set aside, and the suit was decreed for specific performance with consequential directions.

Ratio Decidendi: Proof of a signature alone does not establish execution of a contract unless the surrounding evidence shows that the document was completed and signed with the intention to be bound, and specific performance follows once execution, consideration, and readiness and willingness are proved.

---