LAXMI SHANKER Vs. SHYAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This is defendants second appeal. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit in respect of Truck No.UP-42/5831. The plaint case was that the truck in question belong to late Raja Ram and after his death, his sons became the owner. The defendants agreed to sell the said truck for a consideration of Rs. Two lacs in favour of the plaintiffs. The transaction was through one Surendra son of Panna Lal. The sale letter was prepared in favour of the plaintiff by the defendants on 1-10-1993 and at that time Rs.1,80,000/- was paid on the same day. The defendants opened an account in the Bank of Baroda branch Jahangirganj, District Faizabad and deposited the said amount. All the documents of the bank as well as receipt along with sale letter was handed over to the plaintiff by the defendant. According to the terms of the sale letter, the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- was to be deposited with the Financer Tata Engineering and Locu motive Company Bombay toward the remaining installments of the vehicle. The aforesaid amount was deposited by two demand drafts, one on 7-10-1983 for an amount of Rs.11,400/- and other dated 29-6-1994 for an amount of Rs. 1,600/-. The two drafts were sent to the Financer and, therefore, according to the terms of the sale letter, the plaintiff performed his part but the defendants failed to perform their part in the terms of agreement such as transfer of the vehicle to enable the plaintiff to deposit the tax and get the permit and license prepared. The defendants did not perform their part after receiving the entire consideration with an oblique motive, therefore, the suit for specific performance was instituted. Issue no. 1 was regarding the validity of the sale letter and payment of consideration of Rs.1,80,000/- and issue no.2 was whether the claim of the defendants that the sale letter is forged and illegal one was decided together by the trial court. The trial court recorded a finding that the sale letter was valid and that Rs.1,80,000/- was paid in cash to the defendants, Rs. 13,000/- was given to the Financer towards full and final payment and only Rs.7,000/- is to be paid to the defendants. The suit was decreed with cost. The defendants were directed to get the disputed vehicle transferred in the name of the plaintiff in the office of R.T.O. subject to the plaintiff makes payment of Rs.7,000/-. In the event, the defendants filed to comply with the decree, the plaintiff will be entitled to get the truck transferred in place of Raja Ram in the R.T.O. office. This judgment has been confirmed in appeal by the learned additional District Judge, Azamgarh. The lower appellate court confirmed the finding of the trial court and also concluded that in pursuance to the decree of the trial court, the plaintiff has deposited an amount of Rs.7,000/- to defendants and the appeal was dismissed with cost.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has pressed only one question of law; as to whether the court can acquire the role of expert. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the courts committed an error while placing implicit reliance on the sale letter, it was the duty of the court to get have handwriting compared by the expert and in absence of expert evidence, the conclusions arrived at by the courts below are without any evidence. It has repeatedly been submitted that the courts below assumed the role of handwriting expert and compared the signature on the sale letter by decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff.