Atul Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) IN this civil first appeal, judgment dated 1.12.2014 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 3, Alwar in Civil Suit No. 176/2011 titled as Iqbal Kor v. Imrat Khan is under challenge. Execution of the agreement to sell was challenged by the alleged executant in the court below and hand writing expert was examined on behalf of both the parties. Appellant has relied upon following ruling of the Apex Court in his arguments Garre Malikharjuna Rao (D) by Lrs. & Ors. v. Nalabothu Punniah - : (2013) 4 Supreme 717. In this case, the Apex Court has held that courts should be slow to base its findings solely on comparison made by it. In this case, it was further held that the relief should not be granted on shaky evidence. If evidence as to genuineness of agreement to sell was shaky and not reliable then no relief should be granted on the basis of such shaky evidence. It was held by the Apex Court that the judgment and order of the trial court was based on proper appreciation of the evidence and the High Court erred in relying upon untrustworthy shaky and vague evidence to grant discretionary relief of specific performance in contravention of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In view of the above, the appeal was allowed by the Apex Court and the judgment of the High Court was set aside by the Apex Court.
(2.) RESPONDENT has relied upon the following rulings: - - "(1) Gouni Satya Reddi v. Govt. of A.P. & Ors. - : AIR 2004 SC 3661. In this case, it was held by the Apex Court that if the party has used alphabets instead of full name in his signature then it will be no ground to suspect the genuineness of the signature. (2) Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra - : AIR 2006 SC 508. In this case, it was held that expert opinion is generally of advisory character and not binding on witness of fact. (3) Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohammad Isa - : air 1963 SC 1728(1). In this case, it was held that evidence given by experts of hand writing can never be conclusive, because it is, after all, opinion evidence." We have gone through the law propounded by the aforesaid rulings. It has been submitted by the appellant that the respondent -defendant had filed a suit for specific performance of contract and for permanent injunction against the appellant and it was mentioned in the plaint that the appellant and his brother Paltu Khan executed an agreement to sell dated 25.5.2005 and the sale amount was Rs. 3,72,000/ - in which Rs. 15,000/ - was paid in advance to both, appellant and his brother and both of them signed the agreement to sell, in presence of witnesses and Notary Public and both agreed to execute the registered sale deed upto 15.5.2006. It was mentioned in the plaint that brother of appellant (Paltu Khan) executed registered sale deed of his 1/3rd share of the property on 3.5.2006, but the appellant did not execute registered sale deed in favour of the respondent. It was further mentioned in the plaint that the appellant finally refused on 20.7.2007 and after his refusal the respondent filed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell with the relief of permanent injunction.
(3.) APPELLANT submitted his written statement in which he totally denied the execution of agreement to sell and denied receiving any payment.;