The duty of parties to disclose relevant information, the reliance on expert evidence to prove forgery, and the consequences of failing to disclose information in a legal proceeding.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - The defendants-appellants are in the regular second appeal against the judgment passed by the learned first appellate court, reversing the judgment and decree dated 13.7.1992 passed by the learned trial court, while deciding a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 13.7.1992.

2. In the considered opinion of this Court, following substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this Court:-

(i) Whether the judgment passed by the learned first appellate court is a result of misreading and non-reading of evidence available on the file?

(ii) Whether a previous judgment passed by the court inter parties with regard to finding as to which party is in possession, can be ignored by the court in a subsequent suit?

3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 13.7.1992 while asserting that the land measuring 131 kanals and 16 marlas was agreed to be sold being 3/4 th share of the total land measuring 174 kanals and 8 marlas and in the alternative for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2 lacs with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Defendants No.l and 2, who are owners, asserted that the agreement to sell dated 13.7.1992 is forged and fabricated. They pleaded that the agreement to sell has been prepared while tracing their signatures from the sale-deeds executed on the same day in favour of the plaintiffs and thus the agreement to sell is forged and fabricated. Defendants No.l and 2 further pleaded that in fact they had entered into an agreement to sell with defendant No.3, brother of plaintiffs No.l and 2, on 17.5.1993 regarding 88 kanals of land for a sale consideration of Rs. 10,45,000/- and also executed another agreement to sell for remaining land measuring 43 kanals and 4 marlas also in favour of defendant No.3 @ Rs. 95,000/- per acre. Defendants No.l and 2 further pleaded that they have appointed Smt. Surjit Kaur wife of Ram Singh as their attorney for execution of the sale-deed. The defendants further asserted that the scribe of the alleged forged agreement to sell dated 13.7.1992 is a man of doubtful integrity.

4. Defendant No.3 filed written statement and reiterated the assertions made by defendants No.l and 2 and pleaded that he is in possession of the property.

5. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial court found that the agreement to sell is result of forgery. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. However, as noticed earlier, learned first appellate court chose to reverse the aforesaid findings.

6. It will be significant to note that defendants No.l and 2 had sold the land measuring 43 kanals and 12 marlas in favour of the plaintiffs vide two sale-deeds dated 13.7.1992, correctness whereof is not being disputed. The two marginal witnesses of the afore-said two sale-deeds are Pale Singh, Nambardar and Hansraj, Municipal Councilor, Ferozepur. The afore-said sale-deeds were scribed by Shri Ramesh Chawla.

7. In the present case, admitted signatures of defendants No.l and 2-appellants put on the same date, i.e. 13.7.1992 on the original sale-deeds are Ex.DW1/D and Ex.DW1/E. Apart therefrom, two admitted agreements to sell executed by defendants No.l and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 are also available on the record.

8. Both the parties have examined Fingerprint and Handwriting Expert, who have given contradictory opinions. Hence, it is left to the court to decide the case.

9. Now, the stage is set for consideration the above-mentioned substantial questions of law, which have framed in the earlier part of the judgment.

10. The alleged forged agreement to sell is Ex.P2. Signatures of defendants No.l and 2 are on page 2 of the agreement to sell. If one carefully examines more than 10 signatures put by defendants No.l, who is a Retired Lieutenant Colonel from Indian Army with signatures on the alleged agreement to sell dated 13.7.1992, it is apparent that an attempt has been made to copy the signa