VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE present Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees by the learned Court below vide which the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff-respondent Miyan Singh was ordered to be decreed.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 11.7.1997. The suit was contested on the plea that the agreement to sell was a forged and fabricated document to defeat the rights of the appellant. On appreciation of evidence, a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded to the effect that Dalip Singh had executed an agreement to sell in 11th July 1997 and further that respondent-plaintiff was willing to perform his part of the contract. The sale deed executed by Dalip Singh in favour of the appellant was held to be an attempt to defeat the rights of the plaintiff-respondent as it was executed in favour of a close relation. Mr. Arun Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below cannot be sustained as the plaintiff had failed to prove the agreement by examining an expert. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that once Dalip Singh had denied his signatures on agreement as well as receipt, the same were required to be proved by examining an expert witness. There is no force in this contention. The plaintiff-respondent produced the witnesses to prove the due execution of agreement and also proved on record his willingness to perform his part of the contract by attending the office of Sub-Registrar along with consideration amount for execution of the sale-deed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant thereafter contended that the learned Courts below have wrongly accepted the agreement of sale. Even though, it was shown on record that Dalip Singh was an illiterate person and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to sign the agreement of sale, thus the allegation of forgery stood proved.;