The court can act as an expert in comparing and determining forged signatures with admitted signatures, but it should do so with caution and prudence. The court should obtain the opinion of an expert and compare the signatures with its own eyes to verify the expert's opinion.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs Suit No. 41 of 1977 for specific performance of contract was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 12. 4. 1979. The Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1979 filed by the Plaintiffs was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 18. 10. 1979. The present second appeal has been filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 18. 10. 1979 and 12. 4. 1979 mainly on the ground that the learned District Judge was not competent to act as an expert in comparing and determining the forged signatures with the admitted signatures on the documents.

( 2 ) THE case set up by the plaintiffs was that an agreement to sell was entered in respect of plot no. 530, measuring 8 bighas, 2 biswas and 16 biswansis for a consideration of Rs. 11,000 on 24. 6. 1974 and Rs. 10,500 was paid in advance through a separate receipt dated 24. 6. 1974 and the sale deed was to be executed after the payment of the balance of Rs. 500. The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant did not execute the sale deed although the plaintiffs had always been ready to perform their part.

( 3 ) THE defendant contested the suit denying the disputed agreement for sale executed on 24. 6. 1974 and to have received advance of Rs. 10,500 through receipt dated 24. 6. 1974. The defendant has alleged that the documents and the signatures appended on it are forged. The defendant had executed sale deed in respect of different plot of land and had executed a receipt.

( 4 ) THE trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence as also the expert opinions both on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendant, held that the defendant did not enter into any agreement for sale nor executed the receipt dated 24. 6. 1974 with regard to advance of Rs. 10,500. The trial court also held that the plaintiffs were admittedly the Government servants at the time of execution of the alleged agreement and the plaintiff No. 1 was working as Sadar munsarim in the civil court and without obtaining prior permission of the department, they entered into the agreement for the sale. It was also held that the entire oral evidence demonstrate that the defendant was not in need of money and he would receive payment of Rs. 10,500 for the sale of the land when the total price being Rs. 11,000. The lower appellate court has in great detail dealt with the disputed and admitted signatures on the receipt and the expert opinion placed on record both by the plaintiffs and the defendant. The learned Judge held that the expert on behalf of the plaintiffs has not used the correct filter in order to bring out the signatures on the stamps of the disputed document and the admitted signatures. On the other hand the expert of the defendant has used the filter correctly in order to bring out the disputed and correct signatures in contrast, the background being white.

( 5 ) THE opinion of the expert produced by the plaintiffs was that the signatures of Irshad Husain has many signs of genuineness, as he thinks it has been written freely and fluently despite having been made over and across the revenue stamps. The strokes are firm and fluent, the coordination of the writing muscles is good, the pen pressure is rythmic and modulated, showing smooth line quality. The expert further indicated that it is free from all suspicious features such as tremor, hesitation, careful retouchings or overwritings, unnatural pen lifts or pen-pauses etc. According to him, the disputed and specimen signatures tally in skill of writing, speed movement, coordination of the writing, muscles, shape and design of letters, method of production of letters, relative size, spacing and positioning of letters, relative slant of letters, pen presentation and pen pressure, alignment and individual writing habits.

( 6 ) THE expert produced on behalf of the defendant has indicated that the disputed signatures are not in the writing of the writer of the specimen signatures as the disputed signatures have been slowly and careful