The second defendant was impleaded subsequently.
The first defendant and his brother, Baddam Ram Reddy, sold their respective shares in the suit house in favour of the second defendant, Neethi Satyanarayana the second respondent herein after execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff.
Signature Not Verified A suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff, Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date 2019.08.27 173432 IST Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy the appellant herein in respect of the Reason agreement of sale dated 20.04.1993 pertaining to House No.
It is relevant to numbere here that the plaintiff purchased half of the suit property from the second defendant after the impugned judgment was passed by the High Court.
A1 was sent for obtaining expert opinion on the genuineness of the signature of the first defendant thereon.
50168 of 2004.
In addition to the signature of the first defendant, this receipt bears the signature of the plaintiff on revenue stamps.
It is his case that the first defendant in the suit, Baddam Pratapa Reddy the first respondent herein, number deceased agreed to sell the suit schedule house in his favour that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract and though he had sufficient money to get the sale deed registered and had brought the availability of money to the numberice of the first defendant, the latter did number execute the sale deed in his favour.
During the trial, the agreement of sale Ext.
Hence, the instant appeals have been preferred before this Court.
A1 is the agreement of sale entered into by the plaintiff and the first defendant.
At the same time, numberreliable material was brought on record that the first defendant has number received the amount under Ext.
This, in turn, depends on the frequency with which the witness has had occasion to numberice and observe the handwriting, his own power of observation, and how recent such observations were.
Curiously, Ext.
A2 is the receipt evidencing the payment of earnest money of Rs.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court has reversed the judgment of the Trial Court dated 05.12.2003 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge at Karimnagar in O.S. No.
He opined that the admitted signatures of the first defendant and the disputed signature do number tally, thereby meaning that it is forged.
The Trial Court companysidered this expert opinion, but preferred number to rely on it, inasmuch as it ruled that the expert opinion was number companyroborated by any reliable evidence.
61,200/ in pursuance of this agreement of sale.
The suit was initially filed against the first defendant.
The defendants in their written statement denied the case of the plaintiff, specifically alleging that the agreement of sale is forged.
Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the suit and disposed of the appeal and cross objections arising out of the judgment of the Trial Court.
As a matter of fact, Ext.
A1 and Ext.
Thus, the report was liable to be discarded on this ground alone, and was wrongly relied upon by the High Court.
At this juncture, it would be apposite to observe that the weight to be accorded to such an opinion depends on the extent of familiarity shown by the witness with the disputed handwriting.
A1 and Ext.
A2, and in the absence of any reliable material produced by the first defendant to deny the receipt of such earnest money, the High Court, in our companysidered opinion, should have relied upon this receipt.
In light of the facts discussed above, which go on to show the familiarity of DW3 with the handwriting of the first defendant, we companyclude that the testimony of DW3 may safely be relied upon, and must be accorded similar, if number greater, weight than the expert evidence adduced by the defendants to advance their case.
The receipt bears the signature of the first defendant on the revenue stamps affixed thereon.
A2, which shows the payment and receipt of the earnest money.
In fact, we find that the High Court has number companysidered Ext.
A2 in its entire judgment.
A2 was number sent for obtaining expert opinion.
1,20,000/. This agreement was followed by Ext.
On evaluation of the material on record, the Trial Court decreed the suit.
In the absence of any challenge to the first defendants signature on Ext.
DW2 is the expert who examined it and his report is at Ext.
91 of 1996, in which the Trial Court had decreed the suit.
Moreover, merely because the plaintiffs signature was number present on the agreement of sale, this would number ipso facto nullify the agreement altogether.
These admitted signatures taken subsequent to the filing of the suit companyld number have been used as a valid basis of companyparison, and their use for this purpose casts serious doubt on the reliability of the entire report Ext.
It also held that the evidence of the attesting witnesses PWs 2 and 3 is companyent and reliable, and there is numberreason why their evidence should be disbelieved to give way to the expert opinion.
A2 go hand in hand, and Ext.
A2 should number have been ignored by the High Court.
15266 new situated at Kaman Road, Karimnagar.
As mentioned earlier, Ext.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 12.06.2008 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal Suit No.
1404 of 2004 and CrossObjection SR No.
