The court emphasized the importance of expert opinion on disputed signatures and considered the plaintiff's conduct in relation to the payment of the sale consideration.

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.107 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri, is the appellant.

2. The appellant/ plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale and the suit was dismissed and confirmed in the appeal in A.S.No.69 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri and aggrieved by the same, the Second Appeal is filed by the appellant.

3. The case of the appellant/ plaintiff as seen from the plaint is as follows: The suit property belongs to the respondent/ defendant and on 17.3.2005, an agreement of sale entered into between the plaintiff and defendant whereby the defendant agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.1,18,300/-and received an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- and thereafter on 11.4.2005 another sum of Rs.1,00,000/-was paid towards part of the sale consideration by the plaintiff and it was also acknowledged by the defendant and thereafter, the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Therefore, notice dated 16.8.2005 was issued calling upon the defendant to receive the balance amount and the defendant sent a reply admitting the agreement of sale dated 17.3.2005, but denied the receipt of Rs.1,00,000/-on 11.4.2005 and also the endorsement made on the agreement of sale and therefore the suit was filed for the relief of specific performance.

4. The respondent/ defendant filed a statement admitting the execution of agreement of sale and also the consideration fixed under the agreement and receipt of Rs.10,000/-as advance. But he denied the payment of Rs.1,00,000/-on 11.4.2005 by the plaintiff towards part of the sale consideration and also the acknowledgment alleged to have been made by him for having received Rs.1,00,000/-. He denied the receipt of Rs.1,00,000/-. He also stated that he borrowed Rs.35,000/-in the year 2003 and repaid Rs.15,000/- and balance Rs.20,000/-was to be paid by him to the plaintiff and a Panchayat was convened and in that Panchayat it was decided that the defendant has to pay Rs.41,000/- to the plaintiff on or before July 2005 and the signature of the defendant was obtained by the Panchayatars in a blank paper on the Stamp and that must have been used to create acknowledgment and the plaintiff would not have paid Rs.1,00,000/- and even according to the plaintiff the defendant has to pay him Rs.1,12,000/- in respect of the earlier transaction and therefore he is not liable to execute the sale deed.

5. On the basis of the pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues and are as follows:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-to the defendant on 11.4.2005 is a true one.

(2) Whether the endorsement on the back of the suit sale agreement is a forged one.

(3) Whether the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

(4) Whether there is no cause of action for this suit.

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled a Judgment and Decree as prayed for.

(6) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled.

6. The plaintiff examined three witnesses and marked six exhibits and the defendant examined three witnesses and marked one exhibit and the Finger Print Expert DW2 was examined and she gave an opinion that the signature found in Ex.A2 acknowledgment for having received Rs.1,00,000/-was not that of the signature of the defendant. The trial Court also held that in addition to the opinion of the Finger Print Expert the Court also compared the signature found in the agreement of sale as well as in the endorsement and concurred with the views of the Expert and held that Ex.A2 endorsement is a forged one and having regard to the case of the plaintiff that the defendant owed him Rs.1,12,000/-in respect of another transaction, the plaintiff would not have paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.4.2005 and held that on 11.4.2005 Rs.1,00,000/-was not paid and Ex.A2 is a forged one and in the trial Court also held that having regard to the forged signatur