- (1.) The plaintiff, the respondent above named filed a suit against the appellant for specific performance of a contract whereby the father of the appellant sought to agree to sell the subject property to the respondent at and for a sum or Rs.1.5 lacs. It was also asserted that a sum of Rs.70001/- had already been paid on April 12, 1995 as and by way of part consideration. His father agreed to sell it as he was in acute need of money for maintenance of his own dwelling house. After the death of the father of the appellant, respondent filed the suit being Title Suit No.26 of 2005 as against the appellant for specific performance of the said contract. The appellant filed written statement denying the agreement for sale as also part consideration.
(2.) The appellant denied the signature purported to be appearing on the said document stated to be of his father. The appellant also denied the signature of the witnesses including the one said to be his signature appearing in the said document. The appellant contended that the respondent forcibly occupied the suit property by breaking open the padlock. He, however, did not lodge any complaint as admitted by him at the time of adducing of evidence. At the instance of the appellant, the signature was examined by a handwriting expert who came and deposed as DW-2 According to expert, the signatures were not genuine. In case of appellant, we also found discrepancy in his signatures appearing at pages 167-169 and the one appearing in the purported agreement for sale. The learned Judge, however, disbelieved the handwriting expert. The learned Judge of his own compared the signatures and came to a finding that those were genuine signatures. The learned Judge decreed the suit. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) We heard the learned counsel for the parties.;