The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the provisions of the Evidence Act, particularly in relation to the comparison of disputed signatures by an expert and the limitations of the court in taking over the task of comparison.

JUDGMENT : – This Second Appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15-2-2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Mungawali, District Guna in Civil Appeal No. 11A/1999, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 3-2-1999 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Mungawali, District Guna in Civil Suit No. 5A/1995.

2. This appeal was admitted on following Substantial Questions of Law :

1. Whether the Judgment and Decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court is perverse and contrary to the record?

2. Whether the evidence of P.W.1 Shankarlal Prajapati is reliable and on that basis the decree passed by the trial Court can be set aside?

3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of contract. It was their case that the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 is the owner and in possession of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 353:1 area 3.135 hectares of land situated in village Ruhana Pargana Mungawali, District Guna. On 30-3-1994, he entered into an agreement to sell the said land for a consideration amount of Rs. 50,000/- out of which an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was paid and it was agreed that the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. Since, the rin pustika as well as the name of the respondent No. 1 was not mutated in the revenue records, therefore, the sale deed could not be executed on 30-3-1994, however, the possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiffs, and they are in possession of the same. The plaintiffs had requested the respondent No. 1 and had also sent registered notice, to execute the sale deed, after taking the remaining amount, but the respondent No. 1 did not perform his part of contract. The plaintiffs are still ready and willing to perform their part of contract. Accordingly, the suit was filed.

4. The respondent No. 1, filed his written statement and denied the plaint averments. He specifically denied that he had ever executed an agreement to sale. He further denied that any money was paid to him. Neither the possession of the land in dispute has been parted away with the appellants/plaintiffs nor any agreement to sell was executed. The respondent No. 1 had not given his photograph to the plaintiffs, and it appears that it was affixed at a later stage. The agreement to sell is a concocted and forged document. It was further pleaded that the total area of Kh. No. 353:1 is 9.823 hectares. Earlier, Karan Singh was the owner of the said land. 20 Bigha of land out of this Khasra number was sold by Karan Singh to wife and children of Govind Singh Lodhi. Thereafter, Karan Singh sold 11 bigha and 10 biswa of land to the plaintiffs and the disputed property was sold by Karan Singh to the respondent No. 1. A false suit was also filed by the plaintiffs against Karan Singh which was dismissed. From thereafter, the plaintiffs were trying to grab the property of the respondent No. 1. Thus, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants be dismissed.

5. The trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence, decreed the suit.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal, which has been allowed by judgment and decree dated 15-2-2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Mungawalia, District Guna and has dismissed the suit filed by the appellants.

7. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that Shankerlal (P.W.1) did not support the case of the plaintiffs and accordingly he was declared hostile. Initially, the evidence of Shankarlal (P.W.1) was deferred for the reason, that he had not brought the stamp register, but later on also, he did not bring the stamp register, therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn against the respondent No. 1. Further, the Court