JUDGMENT :

R. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2013 made in A.S. No. 50 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu reversing the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2011 made in O.S. No. 281 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu.

1. The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 281 of 2006 have filed this second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 50 of 2011, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu in and by which the learned District Judge, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 13.07.2011, in O.S. No. 281 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu.

2. The suit in O.S. No. 281 of 2006, was filed by the first respondent herein seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 08.08.2006. According to the plaintiffs/defendants 1 to 4 who were owners of certain immovable properties at Ponvilainthakalathur Village, had entered into an agreement on 08.08.2006 agreeing to sell the properties for a total consideration of Rs. 9,69,000/-. The defendants have received Rs. 5,01,000/- towards advance on the date of execution of sale agreement. It was agreed between the parties that balance of sale consideration was to be paid within 15 days from producing the chitta and adangal by the defendants. The defendants 3 and 4, on 01.10.2006, received from the plaintiffs a further payment of Rs. 2,16,000/- . The defendants 3 and 4 had made an endorsement acknowledging the payment of Rs. 2,16,000/- on the reverse of the agreement. It is also contended that the defendants 3 and 4, had pursuant to the agreement dated 08.08.2006, executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 04.10.2006. Since the defendants 1 and 2 did not come forward to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff had filed the above suit seeking the relief of specific performance.

3. The defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit contending that they never entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiffs. It is further claimed that the suit agreement would have been created by the 3rd defendant viz. Balaraman, who had taken the signatures of the defendants 1 and 2 in certain blank papers for the purpose of obtaining loans. The defendants 1 and 2 would also contended that the suit agreement itself is forged document and they are not liable to honour the same. Pending the suit, an application was taken out by defendants 1 and 2 for referring for the suit agreement to the hand writing experts for comparing the second defendant signature found in the sale agreement. The said application was allowed and the document was referred for expert opinion. The admitted signature of the second defendant contained in the Driving License was also forwarded to the expert for comparison. The report of the forensic expert was marked as Ex.B5. The Expert gave an opinion that the disputed signature found in the document does not tally with the admitted signature of the second defendant. The expert was also examined as DW-3.

4. At trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. One Ekambaram, an attester to Ex.A1 agreement was examined as PW-2 and Balaraman, the third defendant was examined as PW-3. Ex.A1 to A7 were produced on the side of the petitioner. The second defendant examined one Rajesh as DW-1 and one Rangan, brother of the third defendant Balaraman was examined as DW-2. As already stated, the forensic expert was examined as DW-3. Ex.B5 is the hand writing expert's opinion.

5. On consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the opinion of the expert should be accepted as nothing substantial was elicited in the cross examination of the hand writing expert in order to discredit his report or his evidence. Going by the report and also the evidence and the trial Court concluded that the second defendant