Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21-7-1988 and 30-7-1988 respectively passed by the then Sub-Judge, IVth Court, Dhanbad, in Title Suit No. 6 of 1982 whereby and whereunder the plaintiffs suit for specific performance has been dismissed. 2. The facts of the case run in a narrow compass. The suit property situates in Plot No. 2485 Khata No. 60 of Mouza Hirapur, District Dhanbad, having a building thereon. The plaintiffs-appellants case is that there was an agreement between the plaintiffs on one side and the father of the defendant, namely, Ram Swarup Agarwalla on the other side for sale of the house and the property for stipulated consideration of Rs. 90,000.00 . Such agreement was arrived at in writing on 26-5-1979 vide Ext. 5. As per the terms of the agreement, Ram Swarup Agarwalla would seek permission from the Deputy Collector, Urban Ceiling Office, Dhanbad, within a year next and thereafter receipt of permission would executed sale-deed by taking the balance amount of Rs. 86,999.00 . However, by the agreement itself, Rs. 3,001.00 towards the consideration amount had already been received by the predecessor of the defendant. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that the building in question as described in details in Scheduled A of the plaint was previously mortgaged to Smt. Arti Mukherjee, the mother of the plaintiffs, on payment of Rs. 10,000.00 . After execution of the agreement, Ram Swarup Agrawalla died leaving behind his sole son Ram Niwas Agrawalla, the defendant in the case. The plaintiffs requested the defendant to execute the sale-deed after taking money from the plaintiffs but the defendant refused to executed the sale-deed. Notice was sent through lawyer but then in reply to that notice, the defendant had totally denied about the execution of any such agreement by his father, hence the present suit has been filed for specific performance of contract. As according to the plaintiffs, they were always ready and still ready to get the purchase deed executed on payment of balance amount. 3. On appearance, the defendant filed written statement and contended inter alia, the usual pleas of non-maintainability of the suit, there was no cause of action for the suit, that there was mis-joinder of parties etc., etc. As according to the plaintiffs, they were always ready and still ready to get the purchase deed executed on payment of balance amount. 3. On appearance, the defendant filed written statement and contended inter alia, the usual pleas of non-maintainability of the suit, there was no cause of action for the suit, that there was mis-joinder of parties etc., etc. On factual aspect, it has been totally denied of any execution of the deed of agreement by the Predecessor of the defendant or that the defendant was ever a witness to such agreement. It was further contended that the suit property is situated in the heart of Dhanbad town and its value is more than several lacs of rupees and it cannot be imagined that ouch a valuable property would ever be agreed upon to be sold in for a paltry sum of Rs. 90.000.00 . 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (i) Is the suit as framed is maintainable ? (ii) Has the plaintiffs valid cause of action ? (iii) Is the suit barred by limitation ? (iv) Is the suit barred by the principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence ? (v) Is the suit in stipulation ? (vi) Is the plaintiffs entitled to a decree of specific performance of contract ? (vii) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs is entitled to ? 5. The vital issues being issues No. (v) and (vi) had been decided against the plaintiffs holding that the deed of agreement was a forged and fabricated one and never been executed by the predecessor of the plaintiffs nor it had ever been witnessed by the defendant himself. Regarding the issues of limitation, maintainability and principles of waiver, estoppel etc., those had never been pressed before the learned Court below nor those have been pressed before this Court. In view of the decision in issues No. (v) and {vi), the other issues regarding maintainability and cause of action had been decided against the plaintiffs. 6. For and on behalf of the plaintiffs, in total seven witnesses have been examined and on behalf of the defendant, as many as eight witnesses have been examined. For and on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws. 6. For and on behalf of the plaintiffs, in total seven witnesses have been examined and on behalf of the defendant, as many as eight witnesses have been examined. For and on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws. 5 and 6 i.e. the mother of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff No. 1 have been examined while the defendant has examined himself as D.W. 7. A number of documents have been exhibited by both the parties. Those will be referred to at the time of discussion. 7. Mr. Debi Prasad, Senior Advocate appearing for and on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the learned Court below had not considered the other aspect of the Specific Relief Act but confined his findings only on the execution of the agreement itself. By referring to the documents and the evidence adduced by the parties, his contention is that the learned Court below has arrived at erroneous finding. 8. Mr. B.V. Kumar, Advocate, appearing for and on behalf of the defendant-respondent has supported the impugned judgment and controverted the submissions of Mr. Debi Prasad by referring to the materials on record. In a suit for specific performance, the validity of the agreement is the sole consideration for grant of a decree either for specific performance or for alternative remedy of refund of the advance money. So, I do not find any wrong in the approach of the learned Court below in deciding the suit on the sole consideration of validity of the agreement as contained in Ext. 5. Ram Swarup Agrawalla, the predecessor of the defendant was a Marwari and, according to the defendant, he used to sign his name in Marwari only and he had no knowledge of Hindi script and as such signing his name in Hindi is an impossibility and out of question. In the agreement itself i.e. Ext. 5, the signature of Ram Swarup Agrawalla was in Hindi although the document is written in Bengal script. In that document, it is alleged by the plaintiffs side that the defendant was also a witness and he also signed his name as Ram Niwas Agrawalla that too in capital letters in English. According to the defendant, he does not know English and there is no question of his signing in English that too in capital letters. In that document, it is alleged by the plaintiffs side that the defendant was also a witness and he also signed his name as Ram Niwas Agrawalla that too in capital letters in English. According to the defendant, he does not know English and there is no question of his signing in English that too in capital letters. The learned Court below has rightly put a doubt as to signing of name by a person in capital letters. Mr. Debi Prasads contention is that now-a-days, when all forms to be submitted before the Government authorities, it is always required that the name should be written in capital letters and, as such, signing of a name in capital letters cannot be doubted. Such sort of analogy by Mr. Debi Prasad, Senior Advocate, is of no avail. In understanding, the name clearly and for the purpose of clarity of the names, the Government and other authorities asked the applicants to write their names in block letters but never they say that the signature should be made in block letters. So this sort of analogy as put by Mr. Debi Prasad has got no bearing. In the agreement except the defendant, other witness is the mother of the plaintiffs and she has also deposed in the case supporting the agreement but another witness is there i.e. Ram Kinker Chatterjee but from the defendants mouth, it could be brought that he has died in the meantime but the defence evidence was at the fag and of the trial. No where it could be found that the plaintiffs side had ever tried to bring Ram Kinkar Chatterjee on the dock and he has also not stated at that time that he was dead. It appears from the order-sheet of the lower Court that the writer/scribe of the agreement was alive and he was once summoned to appear in the Court but he did not appear. No further steps were taken from the side of the plaintiffs to bring the Scribe who could be the best person as an Independent witness to say about the validity of the document regarding execution of the same by the father of the defendant and also being witnesses by the defendant himself. No further steps were taken from the side of the plaintiffs to bring the Scribe who could be the best person as an Independent witness to say about the validity of the document regarding execution of the same by the father of the defendant and also being witnesses by the defendant himself. Some rent receipts have been filed both from the side of the plaintiffs and also from the defendants and bearing the signature of the predecessor of the defendant which were found to be in Marwari language. Not scrap of paper could be filed from the side of the plaintiffs that the predecessor of the defendant had the knowledge of Hindi and he used to sign in Hindi rather this proposition of the plaintiffs that Ram Swarup Agrawal used to sign in Hindi belies from the mortgaged document which has been marked as Ext. C in the case. In that document, admittedly Ram Swarup Agrawalla had signed in Marwari language. The way the alleged signature of Ram Swarup Agrawalla had been put in Ext. 5 apparently reveals in the naked eye that the same was done by a person with much caution. General, signatures are not being put in this way. An attempt was made not to put the last word L of Agrawal in those signatures as in the rent receipts that word L was missing, although in Marwari language, at least the ways of signatures and signs being made could have been put to the Hand Writing Expert for getting verification from the admitted signatures, although put in Marwari language in the admitted documents with those signatures put in Hindi in Ext. 5, but for the best reasons, they did not do so. The defendant Ram Niwas Agarwalla has totally denied to have signed in Ext. 5. 9. I have already mentioned that his signature was in capital letters in English and according to the defendant, he does not know English. There was an attempt from the side of the plaintiffs to get the permission of sale from the Urban Ceiling authorities and once such permission was granted earlier on the basis of the alleged affidavit before the authorities and sworn by Ram Swarup Agrawalla but when objections were raised and the authorities could find that forgery had been played then such permission had been withdrawn. Regarding permission granted with respect to the vacant land has got no hearing in the present suit as such permission is ante-dated than that of the date of agreement. 10. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant by giving notice could get the mortgage bond redeemed and the mother of the plaintiffs had returned the same by taking payments and that was during the pendency of the suit. In the notices being given, the consideration amount has also not been put correctly. In the notice, the consideration was mentioned as Rs, 80.000.00 while the document (Ext. 5) reveals consideration of Rs. 90.000.00 . It is true that P.Ws. 5 and 6 i.e. the mother and plaintiff No. 1 only have supported the case of the plaintiffs but they are the most partisan witnesses. No independent witnesses have been brought purposely regarding the execution of the agreement. It was stated by both P.Ws. 5 and 6 that the agreement was written at the Sub-Registry Office then why the agreement was not registered, has not been explained when the mortgage bond was validly registered in the year 1972 itself. From the evidence of P.W. 6 it appears that he is a petty business man. He neither paid sales tax regarding his stock or sale in the petty shop nor he is income tax-payer. From the evidence also, it appears that he had no money in deposit to pay up Rs. 86.000.00 and odd for the purpose of purchase on the basis of the agreement. The other witnesses on the plaintiffs side are only formal witness regarding the proof of the Advocates notice, its reply and the rent receipts being exhibited. Similarly, except D.W. 7, other witnesses on the defence side are mostly formal witness, regarding the documents proved in the case for the his behalf. 11. In the agreement itself, there is nothing as to why the building should be necessitated to be sold when admittedly in a portion of the building Ram Swarup Agrawal used to reside with his family and having a shop room in the ground floor and there were about nine tenants in the suit building itself. It was the specific case of the defendant that Mrs. Arti Mukherjee, after the suit building was being mortgaged to her, for an urgent necessity of money had an evil eye to grab the property. It was the specific case of the defendant that Mrs. Arti Mukherjee, after the suit building was being mortgaged to her, for an urgent necessity of money had an evil eye to grab the property. It had also not known or being explained as to why agreement was not being done with Mrs. Arti Mukherjee as the suit property was mortgaged to her at the relevant time but he became a witness to the agreement. The plaintiffs have admittedly failed to prove the genuinity of the agreement (Ext. 5) and the plaintiffs for the obvious reasons did not produce the independent witness i.e. Scribe of the document to prove its veracity and also not made any attempt to send the admitted signature although in Marwari language of the executor of the agreement with those in the agreement itself as the writings in Marwari and Deonagri are very akin to each other. 12. On independent scrutiny of the signature although put in Deonagri in the agreement and the admitted signature in Marwari of the executor Ram Swarup Agrawalla clearly shows that the signature in the agreement (Ext. 5) did never belong to Ram Swarup Agrawalla. It was known to the plaintiffs that Ram Niwas Agrawalla knows Hindi and sings in Hindi that is why to camouflage his name was put in capital letters in English that too half-heartedly in the agreement itself with a brain of concoction and forgery, Ext. 5 was definitely created and manufactured are and when the agreement itself being the basis for specific performance is doubtful one and when the relief for specific performance remains in the discretion of the Court and when a doubt has been created in the mind of the Court regarding the genuineness and validity of the agreement itself, then the dismissal of the suit by refusing the relief claimed is justified and proper both in law and on facts. I am totally in agreement with the findings of the learned Court below. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs and the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Court below is hereby upheld and confirmed.