RSA 116/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1 0th June, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj, in Title Appeal no. 34 of 2007, dismissing the appeal preferred by the present appellant and affirmi ng judgment and decree dated 13th April, 2007 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1 , Karimganj, in Title Suit no.386/2006, dismissing the suit filed by the present appellant. I have heard Dr B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms P Cha kraborty, learned counsel for the respondents. The appellant, as plaintiff had instituted the said suit for specific pe rformance of the contract, contending, inter alia, that on 11.4.2002, the defend ants had executed an agreement for sale in respect of the suit property and rece ived consideration money of Rs.40,000/- from him. It has also been pleaded that though the defendants were to execute the sale deed, they did not do so and inst ead, had denied the execution of agreement for sale, necessitating filing of the suit by the plaintiff. The defendants had contested the said suit by filing their written state ment and denying the execution of the agreement for sale. The learned court below, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, frame d following issues for consideration and decision: 1) Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2) Whether the defendant executed the agreement dated 11.4.2002 in favour o f the plaintiff to sell the (P-6) suit land? 3) Whether plaintiff paid the entire consideration money of Rs.40,000.00 on ly in advance to the defendant in pursuance of the agreement dated 11.4.2002? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for? 5) To what relief or reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled? The learned court below, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, ha s dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that no agreement of sale was e xecuted by the defendants; while arriving at such decision, the learned court be low has also taken into consideration the opinion of a hand-writing expert, for whose opinion, signatures appearing at ext.1(agreement for sale) and the admitte d signatures of defendants had been sent for comparison. The learned court below has also taken into consideration the fact that opinion of hand-writing expert has not been challenged by any of the parties. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff had preferred Title Suit no.34 of 2007, w hich had also been dismissed by the learned first appellate court by aforesaid j udgment and decree dated 10th June, 2009. It appears from the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts b elow that though the plaintiff had claimed execution of an agreement for sale on 11.4.2002 (Ext.1), the same was however denied by the defendants in their writt en statement. Signature appearing at ext.1 had been sent for opinion of hand-wri ting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of the defendants at the instance of the plaintiff. The hand-writing expert has opined that signature at ext.1 and the admitted signature are different and not of the same person. The said opinion of the hand-writing expert has never been challenged by the plainti ff. The learned courts below have also taken note of the differences between the 2 documents, that is, photocopy which was filed by the plaintiff and the origin al of ext.1. Since the execution of ext.1 by the defendants could not be proved, the learned court below has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant that a chance may be giv en to appellant to dispute the opinion of the hand-writing expert, which is the basis for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff, cannot be accepted at this sta ge. In view of above, I do not find any merit involving a substantial questi on of law to admit the appeal and hence the same is dismissed. No costs.