RSA No.668 of 2009 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.668 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:28.09.2010. Sh. Chander Bhan ...Appellant Versus Smt. Vidya Wati ...Respondent CORAM: HON’B LE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. J.K.Goel, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The defendant is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 29.10.1995, has been decreed and the defendant has been directed to execute the sale within a period of two months, which was otherwise directed to be executed through process of the Court. The entire stand of the defendant in this case is that he had never entered into agreement to sell and his signatures on it have been forged. Thus, his case is of total denial, but the Courts below have found that the defendant has miserably failed to prove forgery of his signatures on the agreement to sell Ex.P2 and receipt Ex.P3 by examining his signatures by his Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, whereas plaintiff has proved it through the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert examined by RSA No.668 of 2009 (O&M) -2- ****** him as PW4, who has proved his report Ex.PW4/5. The said witness has compared disputed signatures of the defendant mark Q1 to Q4 on the agreement to sell (Ex.P2) with his standard signatures mark S1 on the Vakalatnama and mark S2 and S3 on the written statement dated 27.05.1997 filed in the suit. He had opined that the disputed signatures mark Q1 to Q3 are of the same person who had written the standard signatures mark S1 to S3. In the absence of any expert opinion by the defendant, the Court has rightly not believed his oral denial of his signatures on the agreement to sell (Ex.P2) and receipt (Ex.P3). In view of the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below about the due execution of the documents Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and in the absence of any substantial question of law having been raised in this appeal by learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any reason to differ from the view taken by the Courts below on the question of fact and as such, the present appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. No costs. September 28, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE