JUDGMENT :

1. A suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of an immovable property filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was decreed and the judgement of the Trial Court was affirmed by the Appellate Court.

2. The present Second Appeal has been filed assailing the judgement of both the Courts below on the premise that the judgement is infirm and erroneous to the extent that no corroborative evidence was produced in relation to the signature appended on the agreement for sale.

3. It is thus contended that both the Courts have proceeded to rely upon the report of the handwriting expert, which is merely ‘opinion evidence’ and the judgement based thereupon is illegal and, therefore, raises substantial questions of law. It is further argued that though the plaintiffs/respondents claimed possession in part performance of an agreement for sale, but miserably failed to prove the possession and, therefore, the Court ought not to have believed the statement of the plaintiffs in relation to the genuinity and authenticity of the agreement for sale. Lastly it is submitted that the plaintiffs/respondents did not seek decree of possession upon specific performance of an agreement for sale