IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.426 OF 2006 (SP) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.451 OF 2006 IN RSA NO.426/2006: BETWEEN: 1. SHIVANNA, S/O CHENNAMALLAIAH, SINCE DEAD REP BY LRS (DIED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SUIT AND REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS) 1(1) SMT RUDRAMMA, W/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 1(2) SRI CHANNAMALLAIAH, S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY L.RS 1(2)(1) SMT BASAVARAJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O LATE CHANNAMALLAIH, 1(2)(2) SMT RENUKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O BASAVARAJ, D/O LATE CHANNAMALLAIAH, 1(2)(3) SRI C RAJANNA, S/O LATE CHANNAMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2 1(2)(4) SRI C RAVINDRA, S/O LATE CHANNAMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 1(2)(5) DR. GAJENDRA C, S/O LATE CHANNAMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ALL THE ABOVE APPELLANTS ARE R/AT RAMASAGARA VILLAGE, MUTTANALLUR POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560 099. 1(3) SRI MARIBASAPPA, S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS 1(3)(1) NETRAVATHI, D/O LATE MARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 1(3)(2) M DHANANJAYA, S/O LATE MARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 1(3)(3) NITHYASHREE, D/O LATE MARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, ALL LRS 1(3)(a) TO 1(3)(c) ARE RESIDING AT RAMASAGARA, MUTHANALLUR POST, ATTIBLE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT. (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 02.12.2014) 1(4) SMT MALLAMMA, D/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT CHIKKAKODIHALLI VILLAGE, HOSUR TALUK, MADAGONDANAHALLI POST, DHARMPURI DISTRICT - 635 114. …APPELLANTS 3 (BY SRI C M NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR A1(2)(4), A1(2)(1), A1(2)(5), A1(3)(3), A1(3)(2) SRI SACHIN V R, ADV FOR A1(1) V/O/DT 07.05.2017 APPEAL AGAINST A1(4) IS ABATED V/O/DT 08.04.2021 NOTICE TO A1(2)(1), A1(2)(2), A1(2)(3), A1(2)(4), A1(3)(1), A1(3)(2), A1(3)(3) HELD SUFFICIENT) AND: 1. C RUDRAPPA, SINCE DEAD (DIED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SUIT) AND REPTD. BY HIS L.RS 1(a) SMT.MUNEERAMMA @ ERAMMA, W/O LATE RUDRAPPA C, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LR'S. R/AT RAMASAGARA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, PIN 560 099. DECEASED AND NO LR'S. 2. SMT GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE OBALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 3. SRI PEDDA REDDY, S/O OBALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 4. SRI SHIVARAMA REDDY, S/O LATE OBALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE R/AT RAMASAGARA VILLAGE, ATTIBELI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560 099. 5. SMT SUNANDAMMA, W/O GOPALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YRS R/O MARASUR VILLAGE, ANEKAL, BANGALORE - 562 106. 4 6. SHASHIKALA, W/O NARAYANA REDDY, D/O LATE OBALA REDDY, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS 6(a) NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABUT 47 YEARS, S/O NANJA REDDY, 6(b) VENUGOPAL REDDY, S/O NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 25 YRS, 6(c) CHANDRAKALA, D/O NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 20 YRS 6(a) TO 6(c) ARE ALL RESIDING AT BALLUR VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562 107. 7. SMT VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, D/O LATE OBLA REDDY, W/O MUNI REDDY, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS 7(a) SMT USHA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, D/O LATE V MUNI REDDY, 7(b) SRI C M RANJITH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O LATE V MUNI REDDY, RESPONDENT 7(a) AND (b) BOTH ARE RESIDING AT CHINTALA MADIVALA VILLAGE, HUSKUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 099. 8. SMT PILLAMMA, W/O RAVI, D/O LATE OBALA REDDY, 5 AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O SULUKUNTE VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 068. …RESPONDENTS (SRI V NAGAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5 R6(A-C) AND R8, R1(A) IS DECEASED, SRI S VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R7(A), R7(B) IS SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.10.2005 PASSED IN RA.NO. 138/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE IST ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), BANGALORE RURAL DIST., BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.4.2004 PASSED IN OS.NO. 77/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) & JMFC, ANEKAL. IN RSA NO.451/2006: BETWEEN: 1. SHIVANNA, S/O CHENNAMALLAIAH, SINCE DEAD REP BY LRS (DIED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SUIT AND REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS) 1(1) SMT RUDRAMMA, W/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 1(2) SRI CHANNAMALLAIAH, S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY L.RS 1(2)(1) SMT BASAVARAJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O LATE CHANNAMALLAIH, 1(2)(2) SMT RENUKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O BASAVARAJ, 6 D/O LATE CHANNAMALLAIAH, 1(2)(3) SRI C RAJANNA, S/O LATE CHANNAMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 1(2)(4) SRI C RAVINDRA, S/O LATE CHANNAMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 1(2)(5) DR GAJENDRA C, S/O LATE CHANNAMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ALL THE ABOVE APPELLANTS ARE R/AT RAMASAGARA VILLAGE, MUTTANALLUR POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKALTALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 560 099. 1(3) SRI MARIBASAPPA, S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS 1(3)(1) NETRAVATHI, D/O LATE MARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 1(3)(2) M DHANANJAYA, S/O LATE MARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 1(3)(3) NITHYASHREE, D/O LATE MARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, ALL LRS 1(3)(a) TO 1(3)(c) ARE RESIDING AT RAMASAGARA, MUTHANALLUR POST, ATTIBLE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT. (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 02.12.2014) 7 1(4) SMT MALLAMMA, D/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT CHIKKAKODIHALLI VILLAGE HOSUR TALUK, MADAGONDANAHALLI POST, DHARMPURI DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 635114 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI C M NAGABHUSHANA, ADV. FOR A1(2)(1), A1(2)(5), A1(3)(3), A1(3)(2) BY SRI SACHIN V R, ADVOCATE FOR A(1)(1), V/O/DT 7/9/17, APPEAL AGAINST A1(4) IS ABATED, V/O/DT 8/4/21, NOTICE H/S IN R/O A1(2)(1), A1(2)(2), A1(2)(3), A1(2)(4), A1(2)(5), A1(3)(1), A1(3)(2), A1(3)(3), AND: SRI PEDDA REDDY, S/O LATE OBALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAMASAGARA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT, PIN - 560 099. …RESPONDENT (BY V N R & ASSOCIATES, SRI V NAGA REDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.10.2005 PASSED IN RA.NO. 139/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE IST ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), BANGALORE RURAL DIST, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.4.2004 PASSED IN OS.NO.17/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC, ANEKAL. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 04TH JULY, 2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE 8 CAV JUDGMENT Regular Second Appeal No.426/2006 is arising from the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2004 in O.S.No.77/1995 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Anekal and the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2005 in R.A.No.138/2004 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 2. RSA No.451/2006 is arising from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.17/1996 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Anekal and judgment and decree in R.A.No.139/2004 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 3. O.S.No.77/1995 was one for specific performance to enforce agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990. The suit in O.S.No.17/1996 is one for bare injunction. Both the suits were clubbed together as the property involved in both the suits was one and the same and common judgment was delivered. Specific performance is declined by dismissing O.S.No.77/1995 and the suit for injunction has been decreed by decreeing O.S.No.17/1996. 9 4. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the plaintiff in O.S.No.77/1995 filed R.A.No.138/2004 and aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.17/1996, defendants in the said suit filed R.A.No.139/2004. Both Regular Appeals were disposed of by common judgment and both appeals are dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, two Regular Second Appeals are filed. 6. This Court vide order dated 23.02.2007 has admitted the appeals to consider the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the Courts below were justified in declining to grant a decree of specific performance after recording a finding that the suit agreement is proved and consequently when there is a specific recital in the agreement of sale that plaintiffs are put in possession in part performance of the agreement of sale? 2. In view of the recital in the agreement of sale stating that plaintiffs are put in possession of the agreement of sale, whether the Courts below were justified in granting a decree of injunction in favour of a purchaser from the I defendant where as 10 on the date of purchase, the I defendant himself was not in possession?" 7. The facts averred in the plaint in O.S.No.77/1995 are as under: - Plaintiff and 1st defendant are brothers. Defendant No.1 executed an agreement for sale with the plaintiff agreeing to convey half portion in Sy.No.164/2 measuring 2 acres 1/4 gunta in Singena Agrahara Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. Remaining half portion in the said property belonged to the plaintiff. Plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- from his brother - 1st defendant. Plaintiff claims to have paid entire consideration amount in three installments. First installment of Rs.45,000/- is allegedly paid on the date of agreement, second installment of Rs.3,000/- on 10.04.1990 and final installment on 28.03.1993. Plaintiff also claims that possession of the suit property is handed-over to him on 26.02.1990. 8. The plaintiff claims that second and third installments are duly endorsed by 1st defendant on the backside of the original agreement dated 24.01.1990. Initially one month time was fixed to complete the sale transaction. 11 Later, it was extended and the suit for specific performance is filed in 1995, after the plaintiff sensed that 1st defendant was making attempts to alienate the property. Plaintiff claims that he expressed his intention to purchase the property and sent a telegram on 31.01.1995 to 1st defendant and 1st defendant very next day, executed a collusive sale deed in favour of Obala Reddy the father of 3rd defendant. 9. Defendant-brother who was the sole defendant when the suit was filed, in his written statement contended that the suit property is sold on 01.02.1995. Then the plaintiff impleaded legal representatives of purchaser - Obala Reddy as defendants No.2 to 8, as Obala Reddy had died by then. 10. First defendant though filed written statement did not lead any evidence as he died before evidence was recorded. Defendant No.1 denied execution of agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff and admitted the execution of an agreement for sale dated 15.11.1989 and a registered sale deed dated 01.02.1995 in favour of Obala Reddy. 11. Defendant No.3, the son of Obala Reddy filed additional written statement to the amended plaint where 12 plaintiff incorporated paragraph No.11(a) narrating the circumstances about the alleged collusive sale agreement dated 15.11.1989 and the sale deed dated 01.02.1995. The plaintiff alleged that Obala Reddy was aware of the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 in favour of the plaintiff as he was a witness to the sale agreement. Defendant No.2 neither filed the written statement nor adopted the written statement filed by other defendants. 12. Defendants No.1 and 3 took a stand that the suit property was agreed to be sold to Obala Reddy under the agreement for sale dated 15.11.1989 and the property is sold to father of defendant No.3 under registered sale deed dated 01.02.1995. The said defendants disputed the agreement of sale dated 24.01.1990 in favour of the plaintiff. 13. Defendant No.3 also filed a suit in O.S.No.17/1996 for injunction alleging interference by the plaintiff in O.S.No.77/1995. In the said suit, the defendant i.e. plaintiff in O.S.No.77/1995 took a contention that he is already put in possession of the property under the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 executed by 1st defendant and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 13 14. Plaintiff in O.S.No.77/1995 examined himself to prove the execution of the agreement for sale. In addition, also examined the scribe as well as the witnesses to the agreement for sale. 15. Defendant No.3 examined himself as DW.1 and three witnesses are examined to establish the possession over the suit property and execution of the registered sale deed dated 01.02.1995 and the agreement for sale dated 15.11.1989 both allegedly executed by the defendant No.1. First defendant did not dispute the sale agreement dated 15.11.1989 and the sale deed dated 01.02.1995. After his demise, his wife who is brought on record did not dispute the sale agreement dated 15.11.1989 and the sale deed dated 01.02.1995 in favour of Obala Reddy, the father of defendant No.3 16. The Trial Court held that the agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.77/1995 is established. However, came to the conclusion that plaintiff is not in possession, despite a recital in the agreement for sale that the plaintiff is handed over the possession of the property. 14 17. Before the Trial Court the expert's opinion was not secured on the signatures appearing in Ex.P.1 - the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 and Ex.D.8 - the agreement for sale dated 15.11.1989. 18. First Appellate Court also agreed with the findings of the Trial Court. 19. Both Courts concurrently held that the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 is proved and also held that the insertion in the sale agreement for having delivered the possession is inserted later, without the consent and knowledge of 1st defendant-vendor. Both Courts have held that the handwriting and the colour of the ink in the endorsement in the agreement for sale reciting the delivery of possession is different from the handwriting and the colour of the ink of the remaining portion of the endorsement in the agreement for sale. 20. The learned predecessor of this Court has appointed an expert to secure the opinion on the alleged signatures of vendor Rudrappa appearing in Ex.P.1 and Ex.D.8. The report is secured. The report indicates that the alleged signature of 15 defendant No.1 on Ex.P.1 - the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 is forged and the signature on Ex.D.8 dated 15.11.1989 is that of Defendant No.1. The expert’s opinion also records a finding that the alleged signature of Obala Reddy, the subsequent purchaser, as a witness to the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 is not that of Obala Reddy. 21. The appellant has filed objections to the said report of the handwriting expert. 22. Leaned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant would demonstrate that the expert's opinion is erroneous based on the materials placed before the Court and did not seek to cross examine the expert. 23. As already noticed, the suit of the plaintiff seeking specific performance is dismissed in its entirety. Though the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 is valid, decree for refund of earnest money said to have been paid under the agreement for sale is not granted. Since the suit is dismissed in entirety, the defendants in a suit for specific performance cannot file an appeal against 16 the finding relating to the proof of the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990. 24. Expert's opinion is now secured before the Court. Defendants-respondents in a suit for specific performance, can also assail the finding relating to the proof of agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990, without there being a cross objection or an appeal, as defendants cannot file the appeal as there is no decree against them. 25. Thus, in addition to the substantial questions of law framed above, following two additional questions also arise and this Court heard both sides on all questions including two more additional questions: (i) Whether the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 is proved? (ii) Whether the agreement for sale dated 15.11.1989 is proved and in a way though the execution of the sale deed dated 01.02.1995 is not per se in dispute, the Court has to decide whether the sale deed confers title in favour of the purchaser? 17 26. Both Courts have held that the agreement for sale deed dated 24.01.1990 is proved however, have come to the conclusion that the recital in the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 to the effect that the plaintiff/purchaser has taken possession under the agreement on payment of second installment of consideration amount is inserted and possession is not delivered. 27. Both Courts have also come to the conclusion that the sale deed dated 01.02.1995 is valid and have also concluded that the agreement for sale dated 15.11.1989 is proved on the premise that the earlier agreement dated 15.11.1989 is proved, the Courts have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. 28. Sri Nagabhushan, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant urged that the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff to prove the execution of the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 have withstood the cross examination and their evidence would clearly establish that the plaintiff came in possession of the property after second installment was paid and father of defendant No.3 viz., Obala 18 Reddy who claims to have purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 01.02.1995 being a witness to the agreement for sale was aware of the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990. Thus, father of defendant No.3 - Obala Reddy cannot claim to be a bonafide purchaser. 29. Learned Counsel for the appellant also urged that the report of the expert which is secured before this Court does not inspire the confidence on the opinion recorded in the said report. It is urged that the expert has compared the admitted signatures and the disputed signatures of different periods separated by five years. 30. The predecessor of this Court has appointed a Forensic Expert to examine the signature of vendor of defendant No.1 and also Obala Reddy - father of defendant No.3 - the purchaser. The report is secured by this Court and the plaintiff though has filed objection, has not cross examined the Forensic Expert nevertheless, has urged referring to the evidence on record that the report is erroneous. 19 31. This Court has considered the said report. The expert has considered the admitted signature of defendant No.1 on the agreement dated 15.11.1989 and the disputed signature on the agreement dated 24.01.1990. This Court does not find any error in the process of comparing signatures on two documents which prima facie have come into existence in a span of three months. Defendant No.1 has not disputed his signature on the agreement dated 15.11.1989. 32. As far as Obala Reddy's signature is concerned, the admitted signature in the sale deed dated 01.02.1995 is compared. Though the said sale deed is executed after five years from the date of the agreement dated 24.01.1990, the sale deed is executed earlier to the filing of the suit. Hence, this Court does not find any error in the process of comparing the signature on the agreement dated 24.01.1990 and the sale deed dated 01.02.1995. 33. This Court has also noticed that the report is supported by elaborate reasons. The expert has referred to almost each letter in Obala Reddy's admitted signature and disputed signature and has assigned reasons for his conclusions. After considering the reasons assigned by the 20 handwriting expert, this Court is of the view that the contention that defendant No.1 has not executed the agreement for sale is established notwithstanding oral testimony of the witnesses who have stated that the sale agreement dated 24.01.1990 is executed by defendant No.1. 34. Though it is urged that there is no specific denial in the written statement filed by 1st defendant that his signature is forged, on going through the written statement, it is very much evident that defendant No.1 has disputed the execution of agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990. Defendant No.1 has denied the execution of agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990. Thus, it is for the plaintiff to prove the said execution and the signature. 35. Though plaintiff has examined the witness to substantiate his contention relating to execution of agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990, this Court in the light of the Forensic Expert's opinion is of the view that execution of agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 is not established as the Forensic Expert has compared the disputed signature of 1st defendant on the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 with his admitted signature in the sale deed dated 01.02.1995 and 21 of course, the Forensic Expert has also compared the signature of 1st defendant in the agreement dated 15.11.1989. Though the plaintiff has disputed the agreement dated 15.11.1989, it is relevant to note that plaintiff has not disputed the signature of 1st defendant on the said agreement as it is the contention of the plaintiff (in the written submissions placed before the Court) that signature of 1st defendant taken on a blank paper is misused by contesting defendants and styled it as an agreement for sale. Thus, there is no difficulty in holding that the signature of 1st defendant on agreement dated 15.11.1989 is also admitted by the plaintiff. 36. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant has strenuously urged that the signature on the sale deed of the year 1995 could not have been compared with the signature on the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 on the premise that these two documents are separated by five years and in that span of five years, there is every likelihood that the signature would vary, more particularly, the signature of persons who are illiterates like the plaintiff. 22 37. This Court is of the view that merely because the sale deed is five years later in time, compared to the document bearing the disputed signature, that by itself cannot be a ground to reject the handwriting expert's opinion when the handwriting expert has assigned cogent reasons to come to a conclusion that the alleged signatures found in Ex.P.1 the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 are not that of 1st defendant. 38. In addition to that, it is also relevant to notice that the signature of 1st defendant on the agreement dated 15.11.1989 is not disputed though the document is disputed by stating that the signature of 1st defendant is misused and an agreement dated 15.11.1989 is styled as an agreement between 1st defendant and Obala Reddy. Thus, there cannot be any objection to the comparison of the admitted signature of 1st defendant on the agreement dated 15.11.1989 with the disputed signature on the agreement dated 24.01.1990. 39. Having considered the report submitted by the Handwriting Expert and the reasons assigned by the Handwriting Expert, this Court is of the view that the alleged signature of 1st defendant on the agreement dated 24.01.1990 23 is not proved though the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff have stated that 1st defendant has executed the agreement. 40. In addition to that, there are few other circumstances which cast doubt on the alleged agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 as noted below: (a) In the endorsement dated 26.02.1990, there is a recital for having transferred the possession of the property in favour of the plaintiff. This recital is in a different ink and in a different handwriting, compared to the remaining part of the endorsement. This is an insertion and same is apparent on the face of it. This insertion does not bear any endorsement. There is no explanation for the said insertion. Both Courts have recorded a finding to this effect and absolutely, there is no reason to find fault with the said concurrent finding. (b) In the plaint originally filed, the plaintiff has not pleaded that Obala Reddy – the purchaser/father of 3rd defendant has signed the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 as witness, though the plaintiff has referred to another person's name as a witness. Pleading that Obala 24 Reddy signed as a witness to the agreement for sale is incorporated only in the year 1999 by way of an amendment. (c) Despite the plaintiff's claim that he has paid the entire consideration amount, the sale deed is not executed in favour of the plaintiff for five years after the execution of the alleged agreement for sale. Both Courts have recorded a finding that there is no acceptable evidence relating to transfer of possession of the property in favour of the plaintiff and said finding is recorded after noticing that the recital in the agreement for sale that possession is transferred in favour of the plaintiff is inserted later without the consent of defendant No.1. When the plaintiff is not in possession, how the plaintiff would keep quiet without insisting for a registered sale deed for five years after the execution of the agreement. If the plaintiff had really paid the entire sale consideration amount as alleged, then not insisting for a registered sale deed for five years does appear very unnatural. (d) The plaintiff has not chosen to implead the purchaser of the property who purchased the property even before the suit is filed, despite the plaintiff coming to know that purchaser’s son has made a claim to enter his name in 25 the property records based on the sale deed in favour of his father Obala Reddy. 41. These facts would certainly create a doubt as to the authenticity of the sale agreement dated 24.01.1990 and in addition the expert’s opinion also points to the conclusion that defendant No.1 did not execute the agreement for sale. 42. Though learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant would contend that in the written statement filed by 1st defendant - vendor, there is no reference to the agreement for sale for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- and there is only a reference that the sale agreement dated 15.11.1989 for a consideration of Rs.45,000/- and there is no explanation as to why the property is sold for Rs.1,50,000/- in the year 1995, that by itself will not establish the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 which the plaintiff is required to prove to succeed in the case. 43. Merely because defendant No.1 has not referred to the agreement for sale dated 15.11.1989 for having agreed to sell the property for Rs.1,50,000/- in his written statement and the agreement so produced at Ex.D.8 (dated 15.11.1989) 26 contains a recital for a sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- cannot be a ground to disbelieve the registered sale deed dated 01.02.1995, the execution of which is not disputed by the vendor or the wife of the vendor, who is later brought on record. 44. Though it is strenuously urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court could not have disbelieved Obala Reddy's signature on the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 on the premise that there is no pleading in the written statement filed by 1st defendant that Obala Reddy did not sign the document as a witness, it is relevant to notice that plaintiff has never pleaded that Obala Reddy signed the document as a witness. 45. The plea relating to Obala Reddy signing the document dated 24.01.1990 as a witness was recorded for first time by way of an amendment wherein paragraph No.11(a) was incorporated in the year 1999 and to that plea, 3rd defendant has filed additional written statement disputing the knowledge about the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 and the signature of his father on it. 27 46. As far as the contention relating that the document dated 15.11.1989 i.e, agreement for sale by 1st defendant in favour of Obala Reddy is concocted, it is to be noticed that the signature of 1st defendant on the said document is not in dispute. As already noticed, the plaintiff has admitted the signature of 1st defendant on the said document as can be seen from the contentions in the written submissions placed before the Court on 10.07.2025 wherein it is urged in paragraph No.7 as under: "It appears that Obala Reddy has obtained the signature and thumb impression of Rudrappa over a blank stamp paper of the year 1989 so as to make it appear that this agreement was prior to Ex.P.1." 47. Though learned counsel would urge that the agreement for sale dated 15.11.1989 does not bear the signature of the purchaser Obala Reddy, it is required to be noticed that it is the agreement for sale in the indenture format and need not bear the signature of the purchaser. What is more relevant is that both vendor and purchaser have not disputed the agreement for sale dated 15.11.1989. 28 48. The plaintiff to accept the contention that the agreement for sale dated 15.11.1989 is concocted, has to place credible materials given the fact that neither 1st defendant - vendor nor the purchaser disputed the said agreement and more so, the said agreement for sale dated 15.11.1989 culminated in the sale deed in favour of Obala Reddy and said sale deed is also not questioned by 1st defendant - vendor or his descendant. 49. This being the position, the Court has to hold that agreement for sale dated 15.11.1989 is also established notwithstanding the fact that there is discrepancy in the written statement filed by 1st defendant where he refers to an agreement for sale in favour of Obala Reddy for a consideration of Rs.45,000/- though the sale deed is for Rs.1,50,000/- and the agreement for sale marked at Ex.D.8 is also refers to a sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. 50. The discrepancy in mentioning lesser consideration amount in the written statement by itself does not render the sale deed dated 01.02.1995 invalid. The reason is simple. Even in the absence of an agreement for sale dated 15.11.1989, there can be a sale deed in the year 1995. The 29 sale deed dated 01.02.1995 becomes invalid only in a situation where the plaintiff is able to establish following two things: (a) The agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 is proved. (b) The purchaser - Obala Reddy had notice of the agreement dated 24.01.1990. 51. For the reasons already discussed above, this Court is of the view that the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 is not established so also the alleged knowledge about the alleged agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 by Obala Reddy. In fact, if the execution of agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 is not established, question of considering the knowledge of Obala Reddy about the said agreement dated 24.01.1990 does not arise at all. 52. Though the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have concluded that agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 is proved and the delivery of possession is not proved, this Court has to hold that even the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 is not proved in view of the report of the Forensic Expert which was not available before the Trial Court and the 30 First Appellate Court and also the other reasons already discussed above. 53. There is one more angle to the present case. It is to be noticed that the suit is filed on 09.02.1995 initially only against C.Rudrappa - Vendor and later, vendor died on 08.10.1998 living behind his wife as the only legal representative. Wife of defendant No.1 was brought on record and later, she also died. Plaintiff did not substitute any legal representatives of deceased wife of the original defendant. It is not brought to the notice of the Court as to who succeeded to the estate of the original defendant and his wife and proceeding against the wife of original defendant is dismissed as abated. The matter was prosecuted against the legal representatives of purchaser - Obala Reddy who had purchased the property before the suit is filed. Assuming that the sale deed dated 01.02.1995 is not valid, the plaintiff has to prosecute the suit against the legal heirs of defendant No.1 and his wife. The plaintiff has not stated as to who are all the legal heirs of defendant No.1 and his wife. If they died issueless, then the plaintiff may also happen to be one of the 31 Class II heirs. Particulars of other Class II heirs are not furnished. 54. Though counsel for the appellant would urge that Ex.D.8 is placed before the Court for first time through the evidence of DW.4 without satisfactorily explaining the custody of the said document with DW.4, and though it is pointed out in the cross examination of the witness examined on behalf of the defendants that the said agreement for sale was in the custody of Obala Reddy, this Court is of the view that even if Ex.D.8 not coming from proper custody, is not fatal to the case of defendants. More importantly, production of document dated 15.11.1989 from improper custody does not support the plea relating to execution of agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990. Even if the agreement for sale dated 15.11.1989 marked at Ex.D.8 is held to be not proved, Obala Reddy, who has acquired title over the property on the basis of registered sale deed dated 01.02.1995, still acquired the title as there can be a sale deed without an agreement for sale. This is moreso in a situation where the sale deed is not questioned by the vendor or any of his class I heirs. 32 55. As far as the contention that handwriting expert could not have given an opinion that the signature is an imitation forgery on the premise that there is no evidence by the defendants to hold that the plaintiff had the occasion to come across the signature of Obala Reddy, so as to imitate the signature on the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990, it is to be noticed that the report of the handwriting expert has to be read in its entirety. Even for the sake of argument, if it is to be held that the finding relating to Obala Reddy's signature on the document dated 24.01.1990 is erroneous, that by itself is not sufficient to prove the execution of agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 as the handwriting expert has recorded a clear finding that the signature on the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 is not that of vendor - 1st defendant. 56. Viewed from any angle, plaintiff has failed to establish the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 and has not offered any explanation as to why after having allegedly paid entire consideration amount, did not seek execution of the registered sale deed. 33 57. Learned counsel for the appellant would urge that the delay in execution of the sale deed is because revenue records were not in the name of the vendor - 1st defendant. 58. The said contention has no merit as the sale deed was executed by vendor in the year 1995 and later, name of the purchaser is shown along with the plaintiff who had remaining half share in the property. This would clearly indicate that before the execution of the sale deed, or at the time of execution of the agreement for sale, the property was standing in the name of both plaintiff as well as his brother – 1st defendant. That being the position, absolutely there was no difficulty in executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1990 itself. 59. The Record of Right at Ex.P.3 would also reveal joint names of plaintiff and 1st defendant - Rudrappa. Thus, the sale deed could have been executed in the year 1990 if at all, the entire consideration amount was paid under the agreement for sale. Ex.P.3 would also reveal that names of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 were entered in the property records in the year 1989-90 itself. Hence, the contention that 34 the sale deed was not executed in 1990 for want of proper revenue records, cannot be accepted. 60. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy vs. Baddam Pratap Reddy1, and Pandit Ishwari Prasad Misra Vs Mohammad Isa2 to urge a contention that the handwriting expert’s opinion cannot be the sole basis to decide issue relating to proof of the agreement and to disbelieve the evidence of the attesting witnesses. 61. It is also urged the signatures obtained after filing of the suit cannot be taken as the basis for comparisons with the disputed signature. 62. It is to be noticed that the handwriting expert has compared signature of defendant No.1 in Ex.D8 which is prior to the suit. It is further relevant to notice that signature of defendant No.1 is also found in the sale deed which is prior to the suit. 63. As far as the contention that handwriting expert's opinion cannot be the basis to disbelieve the evidence of 1 (2019) 14 SCC 220) 2 1958 SCR 828/(1962, SCC OnLine SC 88) 35 attesting witnesses is concerned, it is to be noticed that said proposition cannot be read like a Statute or a thumb rule. It all depends on the nature of oral evidence led in a given case. This Court’s finding on the proof of the execution of the sale agreement dated 24.01.1990, is not merely dependent on handwriting expert's opinion. This Court has also taken into account various circumstances already discussed above. 64. In addition, this Court has also noticed that the recital relating to transfer of possession is inserted subsequently without there being any endorsement relating to such insertion. Apart from that, it is also noticed that the contention that the plaintiff issued the telegram to defendant No.1 asking him to execute a sale deed is not produced by producing documentary evidence in this behalf. Hence, the ratio laid down in the aforementioned judgments would not apply to the facts of the case. 65. Learned counsel for the appellants has also produced a memo along with copies of the sale deeds executed in the year 1995 in the same village where the suit property is located. Referring to those judgments it is urged that the sale consideration amount shown in the sale deed in 36 favour of Obala Reddy is almost three times more than the prevailing market value in the locality. Merely because consideration amount in the sale transaction between defendant No.1 and Obala Reddy is much more than the sale consideration in some of the sale transactions around the same time, it does not cast a serious doubt on the validity of the sale deed which is not questioned by the vendor and the purchaser. 66. In addition, it is relevant to notice that the relief of specific performance is discretionary. The person who seeks the relief has to establish fairness on his part throughout, commencing from the transaction of which he seeks the specific performance till the culmination of the proceeding. The insertion of a recital in the agreement for sale dated 24.01.1990 relating to alleged transfer of possession by 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff is concurrently held to be an insertion without notice to defendant No.1. This fact alone is sufficient to decline the relief of specific performance, even in a situation where the agreement dated 24.01.1990 is assumed to be proved. 37 67. For the aforementioned reasons, the substantial questions of law framed above are answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellants. 68. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed. 69. No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS/GVP/brn