Case Note & Summary
The case involves a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 20.04.1993 for a house in Karimnagar. The plaintiff (appellant) alleged that the first defendant (respondent) agreed to sell the property for Rs. 1,20,000 and received earnest money of Rs. 61,200. The defendants denied the agreement, claiming the signature was forged. The Trial Court decreed the suit, relying on the testimony of attesting witnesses (PWs 2 and 3) and the plaintiff (PW1), and disbelieving the handwriting expert (DW2) who opined the signature was forged. The High Court reversed, solely relying on the expert opinion. The Supreme Court found that the High Court made erroneous observations about the witnesses' evidence and ignored the receipt of earnest money (Ext. A2) which bore the defendant's signature and was not challenged. The Court also noted that the defendant's brother (DW3) identified the signature on the agreement as that of the defendant. Applying the principle that expert evidence is weak and cannot override substantive evidence, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in reversing the Trial Court's decree. The Court allowed the appeal, restored the Trial Court's decree, and directed specific performance of the agreement of sale.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - Handwriting Expert Opinion - The Court held that expert evidence is a weak type of evidence and not substantive; it cannot be given precedence over substantive evidence like testimony of attesting witnesses. The High Court erred in relying solely on expert opinion without valid reasons to disbelieve the attesting witnesses. (Paras 5-10) B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 45 vs Section 47 - Opinion of Handwriting Expert vs Opinion of Person Acquainted with Handwriting - The Court clarified that under Section 47, the opinion of a person acquainted with the handwriting (like a brother) is relevant and can outweigh expert opinion. Here, DW3 identified the signature, supporting the plaintiff's case. (Paras 13-14) C) Specific Performance - Receipt of Earnest Money - Corroborative Evidence - The Court emphasized that Ext. A2 (receipt of earnest money) was not challenged and should have been considered as corroborative evidence. The High Court's failure to consider it was a serious error. (Para 12) D) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 46 - Opinion Evidence Open to Challenge - The Court noted that opinion evidence is open to challenge on facts, and the Court must approach it with caution. The High Court did not properly evaluate the expert evidence in light of other evidence. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court's decree for specific performance solely on the basis of handwriting expert opinion, ignoring the consistent testimony of attesting witnesses and other corroborative evidence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Trial Court's decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 20.04.1993. The Court directed the defendants to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff within a specified period, failing which the plaintiff may seek execution through court.
Law Points
- Expert evidence is weak and not substantive
- Court must be cautious in relying on it
- Evidence of attesting witnesses can outweigh expert opinion
- Receipt of earnest money is corroborative evidence
- Opinion of person acquainted with handwriting is relevant under Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
