Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. The respondents filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.12.1978, whereby defendant Jyoti Parkash agreed to sell 18 Kanals 14 Marias of land for Rs. 8,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was received and balance was to be paid on or before 20.2.1979. 2. Case of the plaintiffs is that though they were willing to perform their part of the contract, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 sold the suit property to defendant Nos. 3 to 7 who were their relatives on 29.12.1978. The plaintiffs informed defendant Nos. 3 to 7 that there was already an agreement to sell but the said defendants still proceeded with the transaction. 3. Defendant Jyoti Parkash denied execution of agreement to sell. He also denied execution of sale deed dated 29.12.1978 in favour of defendant No. 3 to 7. Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 filed a written statement through Shri A.K.Kalia, Advocate, who claimed to be bona fide purchasers for consideration. Shri Kalia, Advocate was also a witness to the agreement but he did not support the agreement. 4. The trial Court held the agreement to be proved and decreed the suit. The said decree has been affirmed in appeal. Hence this second appeal. 5. It has been held by both the Courts below that the agreement to sell Ex.Pl was duly proved in view of evidence of PW3 Pritarn Singh, plaintiff No. 4 who stated that the agreement was executed in his presence after receiving the earnest money; PW1 Ajit Singh, Deed-writer who scribed the document, deposed that the advance money was received in his presence by Jyoti Parkash; Shri A.K.Kalia, PW2, who as a marginal witness, admitted his signatures but stated that he signed only because he was junior of Shri R.K.Joshi, Advocate, without having seen its execution or receipt of consideration. Apart from the evidence of PW1 Ajit Singh and PW3 Pritam Singh, the Court itself compared signatures of Jyoti Parkash on Ex.Pl with his admitted signatures on sale deed Ex.Dl and specimen signatures taken in court on 31.1.1981. The fact that sale deed Ex.Dl was scribed on 26.12.1978 but registered only on 5.1.1979, was held to support the case of the plaintiffs that they objected to execution of sale deed. It was held that Ex.Dl was not a genuine transaction, as defendant Nos. The fact that sale deed Ex.Dl was scribed on 26.12.1978 but registered only on 5.1.1979, was held to support the case of the plaintiffs that they objected to execution of sale deed. It was held that Ex.Dl was not a genuine transaction, as defendant Nos. 3 to 5 were close relatives of defendant No. 1 Jyoti Parkash and Girdhari Lai, defendant appearing as DW-2 admitted that Jyoti Parkash was husband of his fathers sister. Execution of Ex.Dl was held to be not proved as evidence regarding the payment of consideration was held to be discrepant. Contradictory stands were taken by the witnesses of the defendants about the payment being at the time of registration or prior to that. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:- "i) Whether the alleged agreement to sell dated 19.12.1978 (Ex.Pl) is validly proved and is valid in law and as such can be read in evidence? ii) Whether the courts are justified in deciding the fate of the document Ex.Pl merely on the basis of personal comparison of signatures on the agreement to sell dated 19.12.1978 Ex.Pl? iii) Whether the judgments of the courts below are perverse in appreciating the alleged agreement to sell dated 19.12.1978 Ex.Pl? iv) Whether non appearance/non production of a material witness in whose presence the alleged agreement to sell dated 19.12.1978 Ex.Pl was executed and witnessed raises a strong presumption against the plaintiff/respondents and as such cast a serious doubt on the entire case of the plaintiffs/respondents?" 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the court erred in comparing the signatures with the admitted signatures and consideration was not proved. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs submitted that the findings recorded by the courts below are pure findings of fact and since one of the modes of proving signatures was comparison by the Court with the admitted signatures, courts below were justified in comparing signatures of defendant No. l with the admitted signatures taken before the court and on the sale deed. It was also submitted that defendant Nos. 3 to 5 being relatives of defendant No. 1, subsequent transaction was rightly held to be lacking in bonafides. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. 10. I do not find any merit in this appeal. It was also submitted that defendant Nos. 3 to 5 being relatives of defendant No. 1, subsequent transaction was rightly held to be lacking in bonafides. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. 10. I do not find any merit in this appeal. Agreement Ex.Pl has been held to be proved by the courts below. Defendant No. 1 denied his signatures on the said agree- ment. He also denied signatures on the subsequent sale deed. His admitted signatures have been found to be matching with the agreement and the agreement has also been proved by scribe PW1 Ajit Singh and plaintiff No. 4 Pritam Singh PW3. The said find- ing cannot be held to be, in any way, perverse. PW2 Shri A.K.Walia also admitted his signatures, though, he stated that he signed on the asking of his senior advocate. The fact that Shri Kalia appeared for the defendants, even after having witnessed the agree- ment to sell, has been held to be a ground not to rely on this evidence. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon certain decisions, which do not apply to the present case. 12. In Sarojini Dasi v. Hari Das Ghose, I.L.R. 49 Calcutta 235, methods of proving handwritings were discussed. It was observed that it was not safe for a court to base its judgment only on comparison of signatures. In Laxmi Bai v. A. Chandravati, A.l.R. 1995 Orissa 131, the same principle was reiterated. 13. There is no dispute with this proposition. In the present case, the court has not based its judgment merely on comparison of signatures. PW3 Pritam Singh, plaintiff and PW1 Ajit Singh, deed-writer have proved the signatures of Jyoti Parkash. PW2 A.K.Ka- lia, who admitted his signatures as a marginal witness, stated that he signed on the ask- ing of his senior and had not seen due execution by Jyoti Parkash. The courts below have not accepted this statement that he had signed merely on the asking of his senior, for valid reasons. Denial by Jyoti Parkash has also been duly considered. In these cir- cumstances, it cannot be held that the findings of the courts below are based only on comparison by the Court. Comparison by the court was an additional reason apart from other evidence on record. The judgments relied upon, thus, do not help the appellants. 14. Denial by Jyoti Parkash has also been duly considered. In these cir- cumstances, it cannot be held that the findings of the courts below are based only on comparison by the Court. Comparison by the court was an additional reason apart from other evidence on record. The judgments relied upon, thus, do not help the appellants. 14. In Dattatraya v. Rangnath Gopalrao Kawathekar (dead) by his legal representatives and Ors., A.l.R. 1971 S.C. 2548, it was observed that when a person de- nies knowledge of the document, the party seeking to prove the document may have to satisfy the court that party executing the document had the knowledge of its contents. In the present case, both the courts below held that Jyoti Parkash had the knowledge of the contents. This finding, as already discussed, is based on evidence. The judgment is, thus, distinguishable. 15. In Sail Tarajee Khimchand and Ors. v. Yelamarti Satyam and Ors., A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1865, it was held that mere marking of a document did not dispense with its proof. In the present case, the document has been held to the duly proved. The judgment is, thus, not applicable. 16. In Ramchander Singh v. Bibi Asqhari Begam and Anr.,A.I.R. 1957 Patna 224, it was observed that burden of proving that subsequent sale was bonafide, is on the purchaser. This judgment in fact goes against the appellants. 17. In Kirtarath Rai and Ors. v. Sripat Rai and Ors., A.l.R. 1928 Allahabad 307 and Dhadi Dalai v. Basudeb Satpathy and Ors., A.l.R. 1961 Orissa 129, it was held that fact that transaction may be known to large number of persons, was not enough to prove that a person had notice of the transaction. These judgments are also distinguishable on facts as in the present case, subsequent transaction has been proved to be after due notice. 18. Case of Mt. Bibi Kaniz Zainab and Ors. v. Syed Mobarak Hossain and Ors.,8 A.l.R. 1924 Patna 284 has no application to the present case. 19. Judgment of the Apex Court in Krishna Mohan Kul@ Nani Charan Kul and an- other v. Pratima Maity and Ors., J.T. 2003(10) S.C. 150 to the effect that interference in second appeal is permissible where courts below misdirect themselves in appreciating the question of law and place onus on a wrong party, is not applicable to the present case. 19. Judgment of the Apex Court in Krishna Mohan Kul@ Nani Charan Kul and an- other v. Pratima Maity and Ors., J.T. 2003(10) S.C. 150 to the effect that interference in second appeal is permissible where courts below misdirect themselves in appreciating the question of law and place onus on a wrong party, is not applicable to the present case. Onus of proving the agreement was placed on the plaintiff, which has been duly discharged. The judgment is, thus, not applicable. 20. Reasons given by the courts below for holding the document to be proved, cannot be held, in any manner, to be perverse. 21. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.