THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.661 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The respondents filed O.S.No.12 of 1999 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal against the appellant for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 13.12.1996. According to the respondents, the appellant was indebted to various persons under three mortgage deeds, dated 30.11.1992, 15.12.1992 and 04.03.1993 and to clear the said debts, she had agreed to sell the suit schedule property, for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. It was pleaded that the amount due under the mortgage deeds shall be adjusted towards the consideration and the balance of Rs.90,000/- shall be paid at the time of registration of the document. A sum of RS.12,000/- is said to have been paid on 11.01.1998. With these and other averments, the respondents prayed for the relief of specific performance. The appellant admitted the existence of the mortgage deeds. However, she denied the execution of the agreement of sale, dated 13.12.1996. The trial Court decreed the suit, through its judgment dated 03.01.2007. A.S.No.21 of 2007 filed by the appellant before the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal was dismissed on 16.07.2009. Hence, this second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents failed to prove the agreement of sale as required under law and that the scribe of the agreement of sale-Ex.A.1 was not examined, much less the opinion of an expert was obtained to prove the signature on the document. Learned counsel further submits that except stating that they are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, the respondents did not adduce any evidence in that behalf. In the suit filed by the respondents for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, the appellant filed a written statement denying the very execution of the document. The trial Court framed the following three issues for its consideration: 1. Whether the sale agreement dt.13.12.1996 is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of agreement as prayed for? On behalf of the respondents, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were filed. The appellant deposed as D.W.1 and she did not examine any other witness. She has filed a copy of the sale deed, dated 25.11.1996, which was marked as Ex.B.1. The report of the Commissioner and the plan were taken on record as Exs.C.1 and C.2. The suit was decreed. In the appeal preferred by the appellant, the lower appellate Court framed only one point, touching upon the proof of Ex.A.1 for its consideration and dismissed the appeal. Ex.A.1 was said to have been executed by the appellant on 13.12.1996, The fact that the mortgage deeds-Ex.A.2 to A.4 are between the same parties is not disputed. The appellant did not mention as to how she has discharged the obligations under the mortgage deeds. Apart from examining himself, P.W.1 has examined P.W.5, one of the witnesses to the document. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have spoken to their presence, when the endorsements on Ex.A.1, marked as Exs.A.5 and A.9 were made for payment of certain amounts. Nothing contradictory was elicited from these witnesses. Mere non-examination of scribe does not throw any doubt as to the genuinity of the document. Further, if the appellant wanted to seriously dispute her signature on Ex.A.1, it was for her to file an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. No such steps were taken. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have examined the matter, mostly on facts, on correct lines. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts and no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 07.06.2011 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.661 of 2010 Date: 07.06.2010 JSU