IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.453 of 2009 Mahendra Kumar Sinha Versus Smt. Ramdai Devi & Ors. ---------------------------------- 5 5-9-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10-9-2009 passed by Additional District Judge, 1st, Katihar, in T.A.No. 01 of 1998 affirming the judgment and decree dated 9-12-1997 passed in T.S.No. 67 of 1987 by Munsif, Katihar. The title suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for specific performance of contract directing the defendants to execute sale deed in respect of the suit land with further declaration that the defendant 2nd set had not acquired valid right, title and possession on the basis of subsequent sale deed in their favour. The plaintiff has based his claim on the basis of Beyananama dated 3-6- 1987 and claimed the same to have been executed by defendant no.1 in his favour after taking a part of the consideration money by way of advance. Defendant no.1 had contested the suit and denied the execution of the Beyananama dated 3-6-1987 and also denied the receiving 2 in part of the consideration money by way of advance. The trial court after considering the evidence and pleadings of the parties came to the finding that the Beyananama (Ext.1) dated 3-6-1987 was a forged and fabricated document and not executed by defendant no.1. The appellate court has also after reappraising the evidence on record and considering the submissions of the parties has concurred with the findings of the trial court that the Beyananama(Ext.1) was a forged and fabricated document. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that an expert had submitted his report regarding the handwriting of defendant no.1 appearing on Ext.1 and the said report is against the case of the plaintiff. It has been submitted that the said expert had not been examined and no opportunity of cross-examination had been given to the plaintiff and as such the said report could not have been relied upon by the court below while evaluating the validity of Ext.1. Further submission of the learned counsel is that the written statement filed on behalf of defendant no.2 had earlier been not accepted and therefore the same could not have been considered by the courts below. 3 A perusal of the judgments of both the courts below shows that the courts themselves had examined the signature of defendant no.1 appearing on Ext.1 and have come to an independent finding of fact that the said signature was not the signature of defendant no.1. This finding by both the courts below has not been influenced by the report of the handwriting expert in view of their independent consideration. Once the Beyananama has been found not be a valid document, the question of written statement by defendant 2nd set becomes immaterial . As such, there is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant as made out. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)