KOTHANDAPANI PADAYACHI Vs. RANGANATHA PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 608 of 1977 on the file of District Munsif Court , cuddalore, who succeeded before trial court but lost before the learned first appellate Judge is the appellant in the above second appeal.

(2.) THE suit was filed for the specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 8. 10. 1977 marked as Ex. A-1 (unregistered agreement of sale) said to have been executed by the first defendant and for a direction to the defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and in default thereof, the court to execute the same and for future mesne profits.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant while elaborating the substantial questions of law formulated at the time of admission of the appeal, contended that the lower appellate court was not right in observing that the trial court has committed an error to accepting the plaintiff' ; s case by comparing the admitted signatures of the first defendant with the signatures found in Exs. A-1 and A-2 and that having regard to the provisions contained in sec. 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, learned trial Judge had ample powers to himself compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature and come to a conclusion on the genuineness of the signature found in the suit agreement. Reliance was also placed by learned counsel for the appellant on a decision reported in Narasimha Rao v. Someshwar Joshi, (1956)2 M. L. J. 299: A. I. R. 1957 mad. 210. That was a case where the signature disputed was in a promissory note and the trial court had adopted the process of comparing the same with the signature in the vakalat and the petitioner and those taken from the said person in court. It was held by this Court that the signature must be held to have been properly proved. It may be noticed even at this stage that the very learned Judge has chosen to administer a caution that even the opinion of a handwriting ex parte, standing by itself, is rarely conclusive on the question of disputed signature of a person and that the opinion formed by the court cannot be said to be conclusive, but at the same time, the learned Judge declined to interfere in that case, keeping in view, that he was sitting and exercising revisional jurisdiction and normally, the High Court sitting in revision should not interfere unless there is a patent error and clear failure of justice, as in a case where there in no evidence or no jurisdiction.