The court upheld that corroborated expert evidence can establish the authenticity of a contested agreement, supporting the plaintiff's claim for specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M. ADIGA, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.73/2003 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Chickballapur (for short 'First Appellate Court'), the said appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2003 passed by the Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn) and JMFC, Chickballapur in O.S.No.838/1993 (for short 'the trial Court')

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that defendant is the owner of the suit property and he agreed to sell the said property for Rs.15,000/- to the plaintiff and he had executed agreement of sale dated 12.09.1991 agreeing to sell 1 acre 20 guntas of land (southern portion) out of 4 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.52/1 at Jadala Thimmena Halli, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk. On the date of said agreement of sale he received Rs.100/- as earnest money and it was also agreed that the sale deed shall be executed within two years after receipt of balance of sale consideration. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by executing the sale deed and paying the balance sale consideration. However, the defendant, on one pretext or another, failed to execute the sale deed.

4. The plaintiff had issued a notice through his counsel dated 01.09.1993. The defendant did not reply to the said notice or comply to the terms of the notice. Therefore, he filed the suit for the relief of specific performance of agreement.

5. The defendant contended that he has not executed the said agreement of sale and it does not bear his signature and he had not received any amount of sale consideration as earnest money. The alleged agreement of sale produced before the Court was created, concocted and forged by the plaintiff to gulp the property of defendant. He also contended that he purchased some property from the plaintiff under the sale deed dated 10.09.1991 and the same was registered on 11.09.1991 and after the sale deed he got mutated the revenue records in his name. With these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. The trial Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether plaintiffs proves that defendant has agreed to sell suit property for Rs.15,000/- and executed agreement on 12/9/91 in favour of plaintiff and received Rs.100/- as part consideration of said agreement?

2. Whether plaintiff proves that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

3. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant has failed to perform his part of contract?

4. Whether defendant proves that he has purchased the suit property from the plaintiff and is in possession of the same and he had no occasion to sell the suit property to plaintiff?

5. What is plaintiff is entitle for decree for specific performance against the defendant?

6. What order or relief?"

7. The plaintiff to prove his case examined PW1-3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. The defendant examined DWs1 to 4 and marked Exs.D1 to D10. At the request of plaintiff, agreement of sale was referred to hand writing expert and the hand writing expert submitted a report and gave evidence before the Court. He was examined as CW-1 and through him Ex.C1 to C8 were marked.

8. Learned trial Court after appreciating the materials available on record, answered issued Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 in the Negative and issue No.4 in the affirmative and by its judgment and decree dated 14.03.2003 dismissed the suit.

9. The defendant being aggrieved by the said