JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.
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 defendants. 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 Locomotive Company Bombay towards 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 failed 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 the 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.
4. I have gone through the impugned judgments. It is wrong to say that the courts below decreed the suit on the basis of comparison of the two signatures of the plaintiff and defendants on the sale letter. The marginal witnesses had proved the execution of the sale letter who were absolutely independent witnesses. Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a decision, Vijay Bhan Singh v. District Judge, Sultanpur L.C.D. 1085. On the basis of the said decision, it is argued that since the defendants refuted their signatures on the sale letter, it was burden of the plaintiff to prove the disputed signature by getting it examined by handwriting expert. The burden was that of the plaintiff and, therefore, no reliance can be placed and the suit can not be decreed on its basis. The trial court has clearly recorded a finding that the defendants have adduced in evidence the certificates in their favour on which there was signature of Laxmi Shanker and the trial court had compared the signature on the said certificate with that of the sale certificate and after comparison of two evidence, came to conclusion that the signatures of the defendants were identical and thumb impression of Ramrati Devi was also not different. The courts had concluded after taking into consideration all the evidence, facts and circumstances. The Apex Court in the case of Murari Lal v. State of Madhva Pradesh 1980 (1) S.C.C. 704, has ruled that there is no rule of law nor rule of prudence that opinion of handwriting expert must always be acted upon since the science of identification of handwriting is not perfect. Paragraph 12 of the said decision is quoted below:-
The argument that the court should not venture to compare writings itself, as it would thereby assume to itself the role of an expert is entirely without force. Section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. If it is hazardous to do so, as sometimes said, we are afraid it is one of the hazards to which judge and litigant must expose themselves whenever it becomes necessary. There may be cases where both sides call experts and the voices of science are heard. There may he cases where neither side calls an expert, being ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the Court to compare the writings and come to its own conclusion. the duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the court is no expert. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the court. Where there is none, the court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative textbook and the court is own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence. We may mention that Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar and Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. were cases where the Court itself compared the writings.
5. In view of the aforesaid decision, it can not be said that the trial court committed any illegality in placing reliance on the sale letter as it was not only signature on the sale letter which weighed in his mind while decreeing the suit. Besides the sale letter, there were other considerations such as oral evidence of the plaintiff as well as the marginal witnesses, besides the payment made to the Financer and. therefore, the contention raised by the appellants does not show that any substantial question of law arises worth consideration in this appeal. I have perused both the judgments and given careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the respective parties and, therefore, I come to a conclusion that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.