[22] There are 4 issues which had been agreed by the parties for the determination of this Court as follows:-

(i) Whether the Plaintiff's alleged signature on the PA dated 25 May 2000 was forged / fraudulently made;

(ii) Whether the Plaintiff's alleged signature on the S&P dated 2 May 2002 was forged / fraudulently made;

(iii) Whether the 1st Defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value;

(iv) If the answer is affirmative, whether the 1st Defendant acquired good title to the said Land upon registration despite the forgery.

The Court's Findings

[23] Having heard the evidence and considered the submissions from both parties, my answer to the first two questions above are in the affirmative that the Plaintiff's signatures in the PA and S&P were forged and they are not the signatures of the Plaintiff.

[24] The Plaintiff had vehemently denied the signatures in the PA and S&P were his with his own direct evidence as well as supported by the evidence of a bank manager, his business acquaintance and his own children. The Plaintiff had produced the sample or the specimen of his signatures from the bank documents, payment vouchers and school records of his children dated back even before t