JUDGMENT

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the lower appellate court that Ext.A1 sale agreement sought to be specifically enforced against the respondents is not a genuine document and it does not bind the defendants. So much so, the trial court and the lower appellate court on appreciation of evidence found that the appellant is not entitled to get specific performance of the contract and also not entitled to get the alternative relief of return of advance amount allegedly paid. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the appellant/ plaintiff has come up in this appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the finding of the court below that agreement was not executed by deceased Mohanan is incorrect. According to him, an application filed by the appellant for sending the agreement for forensic examination by a handwriting expert was denied by the trial court without any legal justification. Had the trial court allowed that application, the position would have been different. It is interesting to note that no specific contenti