The Second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.09.2006 passed by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge at Ongole in A.S. No. 1 of 2002.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants i.e., as they were arrayed in the original suit filed before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal may be stated as follows:

The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement dated 11.07.1987 against the first defendant, pending suit the first defendant died and defendants 2 to 4 are brought on record as legal representatives. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.30,000/- and executed an agreement to sell on 11.07.1999 in favour of the plaintiff and received the sale consideration of Rs.29,000/- from the plaintiff. As per the stipulation mentioned in the agreement, the plaintiff has to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 1,000/- by 15.09.1997 and obtain registered sale deed from the first defendant. However, though the plaintiff expressed the readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract, the first defendant postponed the execution of sale deed on one pretext or other and thereafter the plaintiff got issued a registered lawyer's notice on 08.09.1997 to the first defendant calling upon him to receive the balance of sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed in his favour. Having received the said notice, the first defendant sent a reply on 17.09.1997 contending inter alia that the alleged agreement to sell is forged document, that on account of the disputes between him and the plaintiff, the plaintiff brought into existence the said agreement to sell. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 11.07.1997 and for possession of the plaint schedule property.

4. Before the trial Court, P.Ws-1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the appellant and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. Whereas D.Ws-1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the defendants and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked on his behalf.

5. After considering the entire material on record, the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff with costs directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,000/- into Court within one month and further directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff regarding the plaint schedule property and deliver possession of the same within one month from the date of deposit of balance of sale consideration. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendants filed A.S. No. 1 of 2002, which was heard and disposed of by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ongole confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.

6. Against the said decree and judgment, the defendants preferred the second appeal.

7. While admitting the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court:

1. Having allowed the appellants to lead additional evidence in the appeal, whether the First Appellate Court erred in not considering the expert evidence to the effect that the disputed signatures on suit agreement (Ex.A-1) are forged?

2. Having regard to the expert evidence establishing that the disputed signatures on Ex.A-1 are forged and fabricated whether the first appellate Court is justified in dismissing the first appeal?

3. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the First Appeal on the premise that pending disposal of the appeal the trial Court has executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent pursuant to the decree dated 19.11.2001 made in O.S. No. 629of 1997 impugned therein?

4. Whether the finding of the courts below are perverse in law?

8. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants/appellants as well as the respondent/plainti