IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.NO.20 OF 2002 Date:27.04.2011 Between:- Smt Ulli Sarojini Devi .. Appellant. A N D Gouroju Brahmaiah .. Respondent. The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This Letter Patent appeal under clause 15 is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.2325 of 2000 by Single Judge of this Court on 18.10.2001. The appellant herein is the respondent in A.S.No.2325 of 2000 and defendant in O.S.No.243 of 1995 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. The plaintiff in the said suit aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed in the said suit on 29.07.2000 preferred the appeal in A.S.No.2325 of 2000 and the learned Single Judge has allowed the said appeal, against which the respondent therein has preferred the present Letter Patent Appeal. The respondent herein who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.243 of 1995 has filed the said suit for specific performance of contract basing on agreement of sale dated 15.05.1995. The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant is the owner of the building bearing No. 9-9-18, situated in J.P.N.Road, Warangal. The plaintiff is the tenant in one malgi in the building in the ground floor since 20 years and as on the date of suit, he is paying rent at Rs.500/- per month. The defendant offered to sell the said malgi to the plaintiff and he agreed to purchase the same and the sale price was fixed at Rs.3,00,000/-. They entered into agreement of sale on 15.05.1995 and plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money and agreed to pay the balance on or before 15.09.1995. The property agreed to be sold to the plaintiff was consisting of a room in the ground floor and in upstairs, stair case and steps underneath the stair case measuring 16 X 22 feet approximate extent of 50 sq.yards. In order to purchase the suit schedule property, the plaintiff had sold his own house situated at Shivanagar to one Raji Reddy for a meagre amount, out of sale proceeds he paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant on 15.05.1995. The defendant having entered into agreement of the sale with the plaintiff, who trying to enter into an agreement of sale with third parties for sale of all the shops owned by her including the suit schedule property. The mediators approached the plaintiff and requested him to take back the advance amount with interest and the he did not agree for the same. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 26.06.1995 asking her to execute regular sale deed on or before 15.09.1995 and expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and the defendant with some malafides intention delaying the same in order to cause loss to the plaintiff. Hence, he has filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated. 15.05.1995. The defendant filed a written statement denying about the entering into agreement of sale with the plaintiff for the schedule property and pleaded that the said agreement of sale is a forged document and she also pleaded that she has never received any amount towards sale consideration from the plaintiff and she has no knowledge about the plaintiff selling his house at Shivanagar to one Raji Reddy. According to her, she along with other owners including her brother A.Mallikharjun Rao, through his GPA and her mother A.Venkatanarsamma have entered into agreement of sale dated 12.06.1995 with J.Srinivas, who was the tenant in one of the shops for effecting sale of the house property bearing Nos.9-9-18 to 9-9-21 with ground floor approximately measuring 210 square yards. The said agreement is inclusive of suit schedule property. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.12,52,000/- out of which Srinivas has paid Rs.3,13,000/-. The plaintiff having come to know about the said sale agreement hatched up a conspiracy and got created and fabricated the alleged agreement of sale dated 15.05.1995 and also receipt dated 15.05.1995 by forging the signatures of the defendant and filed the false suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. Basing on the above said pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the suit agreement of sale dated 15.05.1995 executed by defendant and any payments made under the said agreement as pleaded in the plaint? 2. Whether the suit document is a fabricated one and the defendant sustained loss due to the prohibitory Order obtained by the plaintiff? 3. Whether the defendant entitled for counter claim in the form of damages as claimed in the written statement? 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract under the agreement of sale dated 15.05.1995? 5. To what relief? In order to establish the contentions of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined P.Ws.2 to 4 on his behalf and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.12. The defendant on her behalf examined herself as D.W.1 and examined D.Ws.2 and 3 on her behalf and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.5. The trial Court by taking into consideration the said oral and documentary evidence decided the issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff and issue No.3 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and consequently dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff therein has preferred the appeal A.S.No.2325 of 2000 on the file of this Court and he also preferred a Civil Revision Petition against the Orders passed in C.M.A.NO.6 of 2000 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal on 23.11.2000 and the same was numbered as C.R.P.216 of 2001. Both the appeal in A.S.No.2325 of 2000 and C.R.P.No.216 of 2001 were disposed of by Single Judge of this Court by common Order dated 18.10.2001 and wherein the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and consequently the revision petition is also allowed set aside the eviction Order passed by the lower Court. Aggrieved by the allowing of A.S.No.2325 of 2000, the respondent therein has preferred the present Letter patent appeal. The main contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the learned single Judge grossly erred in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant/defendant should have taken steps to refer the document to a technical expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for expert opinion and the burden of proof lies on the defendant to prove that the agreement of sale is a forged document and also erred in brushing aside the finding of the trial Court under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, wherein the trial Judge has meticulously compared the disputed signatures with that of the admitted signatures of the plaintiff on record. The appellant’s counsel has further pleaded that the learned single Judge has erred in came to the conclusion that there is no inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and thereby came to the wrong conclusion that the said agreement of sale is genuine one. The respondent’s counsel, on the other hand, has pleaded that the learned trial Judge comparing the signatures on his own under 73 of the Indian Evidence Act is not in accordance with the decisions of the Apex Court and as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge that the trial Judge ought to have taken the assistance of handwriting expert in arriving at the conclusion with regard to the disputed signatures and there is no inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the plaintiff has established from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 that the agreement of sale dated 15.05.1995 is true and valid and the said finding does not warrant any interference by this Court. The plaintiff in the suit, has pleaded that the defendant has executed an agreement of sale dated 15.05.1995 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property, which is in his possession as a tenant for consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- and on the date of execution of eth agreement of sale, he has paid Rs.1,00,000/- as advance and agreed to pay the balance amount on or before 15.09.1995 and as the defendant did not execute the registered sale deed and she is trying to execute agreement of sale in favour of 3rd parties including the suit schedule property agreed to be sold to the plaintiff, he has filed the present suit. The defendant therein has denied about the execution of agreement of sale and also receipt of consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff towards earnest money. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff in order to establish his contentions examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.12 and the defendant therein examined D.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.5. The trial Court compared the signatures of the defendant with the signatures on Vakalat, written statement and the affidavits given on different occasions and the postal acknowledgments and arrived at a conclusion that the signatures on Exs.A.1 and A.2 i.e. agreement of sale dated 15.05.1995 and receipt dated 15.05.1995 were not written by the defendant. The said finding of the trial Court was set aside by the learned Single Judge in the appeal by observing that the trial Court would not have taken the job of a expert in comparing the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures and he ought to have taken the assistance of the expert in arriving at the conclusion with regard to the signatures on Exs.A.1 and A.2 and thereby set aside the said finding. The trial Court also observed that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is inconsistent with each other and thereby came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant has executed the agreement of sale dated 15.05.1995 and received the earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/- under receipt Ex.A.2 and the said two documents are not genuine documents. With regard to the said finding, the learned Single Judge has observed that P.Ws.2 and 3, who are present at the time of execution of the documents Exs.A.1 and A.2 have clearly stated about the execution of the said documents and though there are minor discrepancies in their evidence, their evidence cannot be discarded totally and thereby set aside the said finding. The trial Court has further observed that the plaintiff has failed to establish about his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as the passbook Ex.A.12 do not contain the signatures of the bank officials and whereas the learned Single Judge has observed that the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff is evident from the passbook Ex.A.12 as he was having money for payment of balance sale consideration and thereby set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and allowed the appeal. Now, the appellant’s counsel has pleaded that the learned Single Judge erred in coming to the said conclusions and pleaded that under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act the court is competent to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures and the trial Court meticulously compared the disputed signatures on Exs.A.1 and A.2 with the admitted signatures on Vakalat, written statement, affidavits and postal acknowledgments filed by the plaintiff and rightly came to the conclusion that the signatures on Exs.A.1 and A.2 were not that of the defendant. The respondent’s counsel has pleaded that the trial Court ought not have taken the exercise of comparing the disputed signatures with that of the admitted signatures and as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge the trial Court ought to have taken the assistance of expert for comparing the disputed signatures with that of the admitted signatures. The trial Court also observed that the Court is not expected to act as an expert, none the less in view of eth fact, the plaintiff did not choose to send Exs.A.1 and A.2 to hand writing expert for opinion regarding genuineness of the signatures on Exs.A.1 and A.2, a duty is cast upon Court to verify the admitted signatures with the disputed signatures of the defendant and come to a conclusion under the authority given to Court under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act. He also relied upon a decision rendered in “P.VENKATSWAMY GOUD V. RUDRA VEERAIAH reported in 2000 (4) ALD 85”. Wherein it was held that under Section 73 of Evidence Act, the Court is competent to compare the admitted signatures with the disputed one, though it should not assume the role of a handwriting expert. In the present case, the trial Court has compared the admitted signatures on Exs.A.1 and A.2 with the admitted signatures on Vakalat, written statement, deposition, suit summons and affidavits and also examined the pen pressure in writing some words and wrist moment in the said signatures and also examined the slants, alignments and curves in arriving at the conclusion that the signatures on Exs.A.1 and A.2 were not written by the defendant. Therefore, from the above it is evident that the trial Court has taken the role of handwriting expert in comparing the disputed signatures on Exs.A.1 and A.2 with that of the admitted signatures. In a decision reported in “O.BHARATHAN v. K.SUDHAKARAN AND ANOTHER”[1] the Apex Court held that under Section 73 of Evidence Act the Court should not itself compare the disputed signatures without assistance of any expert when the signatures with which the disputed signatures are to be compared are themselves not the admitted signatures. In the above said decision, the Supreme Court relied upon the observations made in “State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram (1979 (2) SCC 158) that although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing, even without the aid of the evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence and caution hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a handwriting with forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against a person accused of an offence, sole on comparison made by himself. It is therefore, not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitting writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other; and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert. In another decision rendered in “AJIT SAVANT MAJAGAVI, v. STATE OF KARNATAKA”[2] the Apex Court held that Section 73 of Evidence Act does not specify by whom the comparison shall be made. However, looking to the other provisions of the Act, it is clear that such comparison may either be made by a handwriting expert under Section 45 or by anyone familiar with the handwriting of the person concerned as provided by Section 47 or by the Court itself. As a matter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety, the Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting and in the event of slightest doubt, leave the matter to the wisdom of experts. But this does not mean that the Court has not the power to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature as this power is clearly available under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, in view of the above said decisions, even though the Court has power to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Apex Court has cautioned not to take the responsibility of comparing the disputed signatures with that of the admitted signatures and leave the same to the wisdom of the experts. In the present case the trial Judge acted as an expert in comparing the signatures as he arrived his findings basing on the pen pressure, wrist movement, slants, alignments and curves in the disputed and admitted signatures. Therefore, in view of the above said decisions, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the trail Judge ought to have taken the assistance of an expert in stead of comparing the signatures himself does not warrant any interference by this Court. The next contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the learned Single Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion that there are minor discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and as such their evidence cannot be discarded and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 establishes the execution of Exs.A.1 and A.2 by the defendant. Admittedly, when the defendant denies her signatures on agreement of sale, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the same by producing necessary evidence. In the present case, the disputed documents i.e. agreement of sale dated 15.05.1995 is marked as Ex.A.1 and the receipt dated 15.05.1995 is marked as Ex.A.2. To establish the signatures on Exs.A.1 and A.2 are that of the defendant, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and stated that about five years back the defendant proposed to sell the suit schedule property and he offered to purchase the same for Rs.3,00,000/- and they entered into agreement of sale dated 15.05.1995 on Rs.300/- stamp and he paid Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money and agreed to pay the remaining balance on or before 15.09.1995. One T.Laxman and Vangari Ashok kumara attested the agreement of sale. Ex.A.1 is the agreement of sale executed by the defendant in his favour. Ex.A.2 is the receipt issued by the defendant acknowledging the receipt of Rs.1,00,000/-. In the cross-examination, he stated that for about one year the negotiations pertaining to the suit property were taken place prior to the date of agreement of sale dated 15.05.1995. Twice or thrice the son of defendant came to his house with the sale proposal of suit property, his name is Sanjay. He too went to the house of defendant twice or thrice in connection with purchase of suit property and one K.Satyanarayana accompanied him to the house of defendant at first occasion and he made a proposal to purchase the suit property and the defendant agreed for the same. Except that talks no other transactions take place on that day. One Samala Mohan Rao was also present in the negotiations of the sale of suit property, one Billa Narsaiah was also present on one occasion during the course of negotiations. In the presence of S.Mohan Rao, he offer to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant and she asked him to come in the evening to receive the amount. That was one day prior to the date of agreement. Billa Narsaiah was present in the morning time on the date of agreement. Samala Mohan Rao and Narsaiah did not sign on the agreement of sale as he paid the amount in the evening on 15.05.1995 and at that time those two persons were not present. In the evening time on 15.05.1995 after getting the document typed, he went to the house of defendant along with T.Laxmaiah and Ashok Kumar and also cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. The said T.Laxmaiah was examined as P.W.2 and he has stated about his accompanying the plaintiff to the house of defendant on 15.05.1995 and Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to the defendant by the plaintiff towards earnest money and defendant has signed on Ex.A.1 and himself and Ashok kumar has attested the said document and Ex.A.2 is the receipt passed by the defendant acknowledging the receipt of Rs.1,00,000/-. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that the plaintiff got typed the document by going away from the house after completing the talks of settlement of bargain and he did not observe as to who purchased the stamps and brought them to the house of defendant and when they were purchased and he do not know with whom the plaintiff got typed the document after going out of the house of defendant and with whose consultation he got prepared the document and he took about more than half an hour and within one hour for the plaintiff to get typed the document and returned to the house of defendant. B.Ashok Kumar was examined as P.W.3 and he also supported the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the defendant executing Exs.A.1 and A.2 and receiving Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff, himself and P.W.2 signing on Exs.A.1 and A.2 as attestors. But in the cross-examination, he has stated that on the date of execution of Exs.A.1 and A.2 he went to the shop of plaintiff around 6.00 p.m and by that time the plaintiff got prepared the document at the shop itself. From the shop of plaintiff, himself and P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the house of defendant along with Exs.A.1 and A.2 documents. Relying upon the admissions made by P.Ws.2 and 3 in the cross-examination, the appellant’s counsel has contended that there are discrepancies with regard to the negotiations prior to execution of Exs.A.1 and A.2 and about drafting of Ex.A.1 and thereby the plaintiff has failed to establish the execution of Exs.A.1 and A.2. B.Narsaiah was examined as P.W.4, who has spoken about himself and plaintiff going to the house of defendant and offer to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for purchasing the suit schedule property and on the same day, the plaintiff paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards earnest money, but he was not present at that time. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he do not know the names of the sons of the defendant, who came and got measured the shop and he did not enquire about the measurements that were found at the time of measuring the shop premises and he never met the defendant and enquired about the suit transaction. Basing on the said evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the trial Court has found that there are discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to the time of execution of Exs.A.1 and A.2 and the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and also with regard to the negotiations that were taken place prior to the entering of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is inconsistent with regard to the negotiations that were taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant prior to the agreement of sale Ex.A.1 and P.W.4 was only present at the time of taking measurements of the shop and at the request of the plaintiff, he is accompanied to the house of defendant for payment of advance amount, but she asked the plaintiff to come on the evening. Therefore, Ex.A.1 agreement of sale taken place on the evening of 15.05.1995, at that time P.W.4 was not present. The discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 with regard to negotiations taken place prior to execution of Ex.A.1 is not material to establish the factum of execution of Exs.A.1 and A.2 by the defendant. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge that even though there are minor discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, their evidence cannot be totally brushed aside. It is the consistent evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that all the three has gone to the house of defendant along with Exs.A.1 and A.2 and the plaintiff paid Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money and defendant has received the same and signed on Exs.A.1 and A.2 in their presence and P.Ws.2 and 3 attested the said documents and the evidence of D.W.1 does not disprove the execution of Exs.A.1 and A.2 by the defendant. The other witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant are D.Ws.2 and 3. Their evidence is only with regard to the agreement of sale entered into by the defendant with one J.Srinivas in respect of all the malgis including the suit schedule property and the same is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the genuineness of Exs.A.1 and A.2. Thus the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the plaintiff could able to establish the execution