Court should be slow in venturing on an opinion on basis of mere comparison.

The plaintiff in O.S. No.608 of 1977 on the file of District Munsif Court, Cuddalore, who succeeded before trial court but lost before the learned first appellate Judge is the appellant in the above second appeal.

.2. The suit was filed for the specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 10. 1977 marked as Ex.A-1 (unregistered agreement of sale) said to have been executed by the first defendant and for a direction to the defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and in default thereof, the court to execute the same and for future mesne profits.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that the suit properties belong absolutely to the first defendant by virtue of a final decree in O.S. No.285 of 1969 and the first defendant executed an unregistered agreement of sale on 10. 1977 agreeing the sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,700, that at the time of execution of the said agreement, a sum of Rs. 1,100 was paid by the plain- tiff and the balance of Rs. 1,600 had to be paid by the plaintiff within 30 days from the date of agreement, that further a sum of Rs. 1,000 was also paid by the plaintiff and received by the first defendant on 210. 1977, that the endorsement in respect thereof has been signed by the first defendant and only a balance of Rs.600 had to be paid and since the defendants failed to honour their commitment and when the notice was issued on 11. 1977, a reply was sent denying the execution of the agreement, the suit came to be filed for the relief referred to supra.

4. Defendants 2 and 4 remained ex parte.. The first defendant filed a written statement contending that the alleged agreement dated 10. 1977 is a rank forgery, that there was no need for the defendant to sell the property or execute any agreement, that the property is worth more and the further allegation that the first defendant subsequently received another sum of Rs. 1,000 by making an endorsement in this regard was also false and the first defendant never signed or never received any sum from the plaintiff.

5. On the above claims and counter claims, the suit came to be tried and both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. Learned trial Judge by his judgment and decree dated 22. 1981 decreed the suit as prayed for.

6. Aggrieved, the defendant filed A.S. No. 125 of 1981 on the file of the District Court, Cuddalore. Learned first appellate Judge has chosen to re-appreciate the evidence in a different manner and differed from the findings recorded and conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge and was of the view that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is not acceptable and the plaintiff failed to prove that the first defendant executed the suit agreement. Consequently, the appeal came to be allowed and the suit came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 11. 1983. Hence, the above second appeal.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant while elaborating the substantial questions of law formulated at the time of admission of the appeal, contended that the lower appellate court was not right in observing that the trial court has committed an error to accepting the plaintiff’s case by comparing the admitted signatures of the first defendant with the signatures found in Exs.A-1 and A-2 and that having regard to the provisions contained in Sec.73 of the Indian Evidence Act, learned trial Judge had ample powers to himself compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature and come to a conclusion on the genuineness of the signature found in the suit agreement. Reliance was also placed by learned counsel for the appellant on a decision reported in Narasimha Rao v. Someshwar Joshi, (1956)2 M.L.J. 299: A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 210. That was a case where the signature disputed was in a promissory note and the trial court had adopted the process of comparing the same with the signature in the vakalat and the petitioner and those taken from the said person i