The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of expert opinion in comparing disputed signatures and determining the genuineness of documents, emphasizing the role of the court and adherence to legal principles in such comparisons.

1. This Second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2006 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in A.S.No.2 of 2005, reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.4.2004 passed by the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in O.S.No.242 of 1992, which was one for specific performance of an agreement to sell.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Narratively but precisely, broadly but briefly, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

(a) The appellant herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit for specific performance mainly on the ground that there emerged an agreement to sell as per Ex.A1, dated 12.6.1991, between the deceased D1-R.Kothandarama Gokuldass-the owner of the land described in the schedule of the plaint and the plaintiff-G.Govindaraj.

(b) According to the plaintiff, since D1 committed default in honouring the agreement to sell, the suit was filed.

(c) D1-R.Kothandarama Gokuldass during his life time filed the written statement resisting the suit on the main ground that Ex.B2-the Vardhamana letter dated 12.6.1991 was executed by the plaintiff only by way of securing prompt repayment of the loan amount.

(d) Whereupon issues were framed by the trial Court.

(e) Up went the trial, during which, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A22 were marked on his side. On the defendants' side, the first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 and D.W.3 and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

(f) Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which the defendants preferred the appeal. Whereupon the appellate Court set aside the judgement and decree of the trial Court by reversing the findings and dismissed the original suit.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the plaintiff preferred this Second Appeal on various grounds inter alia suggesting the following substantial questions of law.

"(a) Whether the appellate Court is correct in allowing the appeal without considering the bona fide statement of the respondent in execution of the sale agreement dated 12.6.1991?

(b) Whether the first appellate Court is correct in allowing the appeal without considering the Ex.A1 in which the specific time limit was fixed for execution of sale deed?

(c) Whether the first appellate Court is correct in allowing the appeal without considering the ready and willingness of this appellant to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time?

(d) Whether the Court below is correct in came to the conclusion that the respondent herein, borrowed loan from this appellant who have more than sufficient income derived from their properties?

(e) Whether the first appellate Court is correct in allowing the appeal without considering the Ex.A5, A6, A7 and the denial of respondents in production of copy of Vardhamana letter in view of Ex.B8?

(f) Whether the first appellate Court is correct in modifying the judgement of trial Court based on the document created by the appellant in the first appeal?

(extracted as such)

5. Heard both sides.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would pyramid her arguments, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:

(i) The first appellate Court, of its own accord simply compared the signatures of the plaintiff in the pre-suit notice and the rejoinder notice of the plaintiff with that of the disputed signature in Ex.B2 and held as though Ex.B2-the Vardhamana Letter was executed by the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.

(ii) The trial Court considering the pro et contra, correctly decreed the suit for specific performance.

(iii) The first appellate Court took the case of the defendant for gospel truth and dismissed the suit for specific performance, warranting interference in