GIRIJA Vs. NAGAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, having lost her suit for specific performance successively before the courts below, has come forward with the present Second Appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is that;

(3.) Before the trial court, the plaintiff examined P.W.2, the attesting witness to Ex.A.1, but he turned hostile. He merely admitted his signature in Ex.A.1, but, did not talk in support of Ex.A.1. So far as the defendant, he produced Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.7, all of which are the documents produced about the time when the sale agreement was executed and admittedly, contains his admitted signatures. Notwithstanding the denial of execution by the defendant, the plaintiff did not take any steps to compare the disputed signature of the defendant in Ext.A.1 with his admitted signatures in Exts.B.2 to B.7. While the trial Court did not attempt to compare the admitted signature of the defendant with the disputed signature in Ex.A.1 within the powers it has under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, the First Appellate Court did compare the same.