IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.736 of 1980 1. Roudi Rout son of Dip Narain Rout 2. Ram Babu Rout son of Brahmadeo Raut 3. Brahamdeo Raut son of Sidhlal Raout All resident of Rampur Garikhana P.S.Khagaul Dist. Patna ..Plaintiffs-respondents-appellants Versus 1. Mangal Choudhary son of Pairu Choudhary 2. Harakh Lal son of Sanichar Lal Both resident of Rampur Garikhana P.S.Khagaul Dist. Patna Defendants-appellants-respondents ----------- For the appellants: Mr Awadhesh Prasad Sinha Mr Ashok Kumar Sinha For the respondents: None ------------ 09 09.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs- respondents-appellants challenging the judgment and decree of the court of appeal below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.388 of 1965 which was filed by the appellants for a decree of specific performance of contract vide agreement of sale dated 16.07.1965 and also for confirmation of possession. 4. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Additional Munsif, Danapur vide judgment and decree dated 29.07.1975. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed Title Appeal no.71 of 1975 (8 of 1978) which was allowed on contest with cost by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, XI, Patna, vide his judgment and decree dated 11.09.1980. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below have been challenged in the instant appeal. 5. From the averments of the parties as well as - 2 - materials on record including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that exhibit 2 is deed of agreement which was claimed by the plaintiffs to have been executed by defendants no.1 and 2 but defendant no.1 clearly stated in his deposition that the said exhibit 2 did not bear his signature. The court of appeal below had come to the conclusion that as the signature of defendant no.1 over exhibit 2 was a disputed one, onus was upon the plaintiff to get it compared by expert but he failed to get signature of defendant no.1 examined and proved and the court of appeal below being expert of experts came to the conclusion that the signature and the document (exhibit 2) were not genuine and hence the question of specific performance of contract on the basis of the said document does not arise. 6. In the said circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the court of appeal below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. shahid (S.N.Hussain,J) - 3 -