JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, J. In this appeal Defendant calls in question the validity of Plaintiff/Respondent filed the instant suit for specific performance of an agreement to sale dated 14-6-1991 with espect to property situated at Mutton Market, Sadar Bazar. The area of the land was 3645 sq.ft. consisting of house and dairy. The property was purchased by the Defendant from Ms. Jeenat Usmani on 26-8-1987. Plaintiff claimed that on 14-6-1991 the Defendant had agreed to sell the immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 1 lakh. Rs. 90,000/- was paid to the Defendant by way of earnest money at the time of execution of agreement on 14-6-1991. Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of sale-deed. Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. However, Defendant did not hand over the vacant possession of disputed property neither executed the sale-deed, in spite of notice dated 9-12-1992. Consequently, suit was preferred. Defendant in the written statement contended that the agreement was forged and fabricated. No such agreement was entered into. Consideration of Rs. 90,000/- was not received. Signatures of the Defendant on the agreement were forged. Defendant used to sign in Urdu language. Plaintiff had forged documents in order to grab the property by dishonest means. For filing false and frivolous suit costs of Rs. 2,000/- be awarded u/s 35A, Civil Procedure Code. After recording the evidence the trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement to sale dated 14-6-1991. Shri Girish Shrivastava appearing with Shri Vijayraghav Singh on behalf of the Appellant has submitted that the evidence is at variance from the pleadings. Plaintiff has come to Court with the case that the agreement was executed on 14-6-1991 whereas the evidence indicates that some other agreement was entered into earlier, consideration of Rs. 50,000/- has been paid on the date of execution of earlier agreement and on the date of execution of agreement on 14-6-1991, only part of consideration of Rs. 40,000/- was paid. The evidence is at variance from pleadings. He has further submitted that the signatures of the Defendants are forged is apparent from expert report. He has further pointed out that even a bare look of the agreement makes it crystal clear that the signatures have been forged. Pen pressure, speed indicates that the signatures have been copied. 40,000/- was paid. The evidence is at variance from pleadings. He has further submitted that the signatures of the Defendants are forged is apparent from expert report. He has further pointed out that even a bare look of the agreement makes it crystal clear that the signatures have been forged. Pen pressure, speed indicates that the signatures have been copied. The report of expert; Madan Mohan Kakkad (D.W.-4) is reliable. Report of an expert examined by the Plaintiff Shri K.R. Pille (P.W.-4) is not reliable. Credentials of Shri K.R. Pille have been adversely commented by this Court in several decisions. Passing of consideration has not been proved. Shri Khandelwal, Advocate has not been examined. Findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse. The approach of trial Court discarding an expert report of M.M. Kakkad is impermissible. An expert examined by the Defendant had also compared the signatures of the Defendant which were in the bank documents. Similarly the expert examined by the Plaintiff had also compared the signatures of the Defendant on the bank documents with the disputed signatures, as such double standard has been applied by the trial Court. Shri A.K. Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the First question for consideration is whether the agreement was executed as claimed on 14-6-1991 and consideration of Rs. 90,000/- was passed: Ex. P/1 has been signed as an attesting witness by Shri Ganpat Singh Patel and Shri J.L. Khandelwal, Advocate. It was mentioned in the agreement that vacant possession was to be obtained by the Defendant, thereafter sale-deed to be executed in favour of Plaintiff or such other persons, in parts as pointed out by the purchaser. When we consider the statements of Plaintiff; Ramesh Chouksey (P.W.-1) and Ganpat Singh Patel (P.W.-2), it is clear that their statements are at substantial variance from the averments made in the plaint. Ramesh Chouksey (P.W.-1) has stated that on 7-3-1991 consideration of Rs. 50,000/- was paid whereas in plaint it was pleaded that on the date of execution of agreement, i.e. 14-6-1991 entire consideration was paid. It is also the statement of Ramesh Chouksey in paragraph No. 1 of his deposition that a receipt was passed over by the Defendant of payment of consideration of Rs. 50,000/- on 7-3-1991 and the said receipt was given back to the Defendant on payment of Rs. 40,00/- on 14-6-1991. It is also the statement of Ramesh Chouksey in paragraph No. 1 of his deposition that a receipt was passed over by the Defendant of payment of consideration of Rs. 50,000/- on 7-3-1991 and the said receipt was given back to the Defendant on payment of Rs. 40,00/- on 14-6-1991. This statement that prior receipt was given back is unnatural and unreliable. In case receipt was given of Rs. 50,000/-, there was no reason to give it back to the Defendant as that was the best evidence of the receipt of consideration of Rs. 50,000/- on 7-3-1991. Merely fact that the Plaintiff claimed that the agreement dated 14-6-1991 was executed as such earlier receipt was given back was no reason to give back the earlier receipt of passing of consideration. Thus, the statement of Plaintiff as to payment of Rs. 50,000/- on 7-3-1991 and giving back of receipt or agreement to the Defendant is not at all worthy of reliance. Plaintiff has further deposed that the agreement in question was prepared by Shri Khandelwal, Advocate. Shri Khandelwal, Advocate has not been examined. He could have been the best witness to depose as to the transaction. Moreover, in case any consideration was passed on 7-3-1991, it was necessary to make an averment to that effect in the plaint. Absence of averment also makes the case of Plaintiff unreliable. It was also apparent that the Plaintiff deals as a property broker as admitted by him in paragraph No. 8 of his deposition. However, he had not obtained any license for the said work. He has further stated that he had entered into an agreement on 14-6-1991 in order to sell the property to someone else. In paragraph No. 11 of his deposition he has contradicted his earlier version and has stated that when earlier consideration of Rs. 50,000/- was paid, it was not reduced in writing. In the next breath he changed his statement and stated that both the transactions were reduced in writing on stamps and the documents relating to Rs. 50,000/- was given back to the Defendant. Thus, the witness has no respect to truth and has changed the version to suit his requirement as per his figment of imagination, saving his skin, his statement is not at all worthy of any credence. 50,000/- was given back to the Defendant. Thus, the witness has no respect to truth and has changed the version to suit his requirement as per his figment of imagination, saving his skin, his statement is not at all worthy of any credence. There was no reason in case he was not desirous to purchase the property to pass on consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. The case set up at evidence stage that earlier stamp was given back to Defendant was also at variance from the plaint and render the whole case of Plaintiff to be doubtful. Plaintiff stated in paragraph No. 15 that he would examine Shri Khandelwal, Advocate as witness, but ultimately he was not produced. Thus, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the Plaintiff in the circumstances of the case. Statement of witness Ganpat Singh Patel (P.W.-2) examined is also not worthy of reliance. He has stated that sum of Rs. 45,000/- was paid to the Defendant in his presence and presence of Shri Khandelwal. Witness has further stated that earlier agreement was torn and thrown away at the time of execution of agreement (P/1) whereas Plaintiff has stated that earlier agreement was given back to the Defendant. Thus, his statement being at variance with the statement of Plaintiff is not worthy of reliance. Moreover, he is friend of Plaintiff. In the absence of pleading in the plaint that an agreement was earlier entered into, statement of Ganpat Singh is rendered doubtful. Witness has stated that sum of Rs. 50,000/- was not paid in his presence. Plaintiff has not examined any other witness in whose presence sum of Rs. 50,000/- was passed over:o the Defendant on 7-3-1991. Witness was unable to state who were the witnesses of earlier agreement. Coming to the statement of Defendant; Mohd. Yunus (D.W.-l). He has denied the execution of the agreement (P/1) and his signatures. He had not received any notice. He has stated that he used to sign in Urdu. However, he has admitted that in the bank documents his signatures were in English as Officers of the Bank stated that they would not accept the signatures in Urdu, as such he had signed in English. Though in the written statement in paragraph No. 7. it was mentioned that he used to sign in Urdu, not in English. However, he has admitted that in the bank documents his signatures were in English as Officers of the Bank stated that they would not accept the signatures in Urdu, as such he had signed in English. Though in the written statement in paragraph No. 7. it was mentioned that he used to sign in Urdu, not in English. Merely statement made in the written statement is not going to make out a case in favour of the Plaintiff. It appears that usually Defendant; Mohd. Yunus signs in Urdu, but he had signed in English as per the requirement of the Bank. He has also stated in paragraph No. 3 that after signing in English in the bank documents, he had not signed in English thereafter. It was not put to him in cross-examination whether consideration of Rs. 50,000/- was accepted by him in the month of March, 1991 and receipt was passed or an agreement dated 7-3-1991 was also executed on stamp and that was given back to him at the time of execution of agreement (P/1) or torned. It was necessary to obtain the explanation as to aforesaid material facts and to put case of the Plaintiff in the cross-examination of Defendant. In the absence of pleadings, it was absolutely necessary to put aforesaid version cf the Plaintiff as disclosed at stage of the evidence, but. cross-examination was not made on that line. Cross-examination is not a mere matter of procedure, but. is a matter of substance. In case any consideration was paid in the month of March, receipt was executed, or an agreement was also reduced in writing on stamp. These facts ought to have been put in the cross-examination of Mohd. Yunus, Hiralal Yadav (D.W.-2) had also stated that the Plaintiff is a money lender, no agreement was executed. Ganesh Yadav (D.W.-3) has also deposed in support of non-execution of the agreement. In S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, . the Apex Court held that the expert evidence is weak type of evidence. Court do not consider it as conclusive and, therefore, not safe to rely upon it without seeking independent and reliable corroboration. Ganesh Yadav (D.W.-3) has also deposed in support of non-execution of the agreement. In S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, . the Apex Court held that the expert evidence is weak type of evidence. Court do not consider it as conclusive and, therefore, not safe to rely upon it without seeking independent and reliable corroboration. In the instant case, when we consider the evidence, surrounding circumstances, variance in pleadings and proof and contents of the reports of experts it is clear that the Plaintiff has not been able to prove the due execution of agreement (Ex.P/1) and passing of consideration. In Ajit Savant Majagavi Vs. State of Karnataka, , State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeon AIR 1990 SC 2100 and Ruber Prasad S/o Lok Nath Ram v. Mst. Sukharajua wd/o Gulab Singh, 2000(3) MPLJ 108 the Court has laid down that the Court should not act as an expert, but, at the same time it does not mean that the Court has no power to compare the disputed signatures with admitted signatures. This power is clearly available u/s 73 of the Evidence Act. Though it is hazardous to compare the signatures and act solely on that basis. But, in the instant case, there is ample evidence on record to show that the signatures of Defendant have been forged. In the light of law laid down in aforesaid decisions coming to the expert witnesses examined by the Plaintiff and Defendant and comparison of signatures on Ex. P/1 and bank documents. It is clear that both the experts; Shri K.R. Pille (P.W.-4) and Shri Madan Mohan Kakkad (D.W.-4) have examined the disputed signatures with the signatures of the Defendant in the bank documents. The report (Ex.P/5) submitted by Shri K.R. Pille indicates that the speed is fast in both the sets, pen pressure is heavy in both the standard signatures. The report (Ex.D/3) of Shri Madan Mohan Kakkad indicates that the disputed signatures have not been written by the writer of the standard signatures marked as A1 to A9, A1 to A9 are the signatures in the bank documents compared; by Shri Madan Mohan Kakkad (D.W.-4). He has opined that the signatures D1 and D2 are result of free hand forgeries. The reasons given by him in report are in detail. He has opined that the signatures D1 and D2 are result of free hand forgeries. The reasons given by him in report are in detail. As to speed he has opined that the disputed signatures have been written with slow and restricted speed, as is quite evidence from the interruptions in the pen-lines, whereas the standard signatures have been written with rapid speed as is quite evidence from the fluency in the pen-lines which forms the letters. As to movement, he has opined that the disputed signatures have been written with linger and restricted action of the wrist as is quite evidence from hardly any lateral freedom, whereas the standard signatures have been written with combined finger and wrist with slight fore-arm movements as is quite evidence from the lateral freedom in the pen-lines which forms the letters. As to pen-pressure, he has opined that the pen-pressure applied for writing the disputed signatures is heavy and irregular, whereas the pen-pressure applied for writing the standard signatures is medium to light as is quite evidence from the release of pressure at the terminals of letters. He has also pointed out the point of similarity in the slant etc. In view of the aforesaid conflicting reports when standard signatures and disputed signatures are seen at a glance without meaning to act as an expert, the report submitted by Shri Madan Mohan Kakkad (D.W. 4) appears to be quite correct, reasoned and reliable one. Signatures on Ex. P/1 agreement are in extremely slow speed as compared to standard signatures forgery is apparent, by mere look at the disputed and admitted signatures of bank it can be said that the signature on Ex. P/1 has been forged and the report submitted by Shri Madan Mohan Kakkad contain sound reasons and reliable one. He has given the reason in detail. The report ot Shri K.R. Pille lacks reason and prima facie incorrect. The learned Trial Judge has committed error while applying the double standard while rejecting report of Shri Kakkad. The bank signatures were compared by the expert examined on behalf of Plaintiff as well as Defendant without adverting to the fact that the bank signatures were also considered by Defendant expert Shri Kakkad. his report was discarded, not obtaining standard signature was not fatal as admitted and disputed signatures have been considered. The bank signatures were compared by the expert examined on behalf of Plaintiff as well as Defendant without adverting to the fact that the bank signatures were also considered by Defendant expert Shri Kakkad. his report was discarded, not obtaining standard signature was not fatal as admitted and disputed signatures have been considered. Thus, I find that the trial Court has committed grave error of law in rejecting report of Shri Kakkad. the finding recorded by the trial Judge as to signatures is not at all sustainable. In Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank and Others, relied upon by Shri A.K. Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, the Apex Court has laid down that even if in some earlier cases Court had passed some adverse remarks against the expert, his evidence cannot be discarded on that ground alone and instead Court is required to make a careful analysis of his evidence. What is necessary to see whether the report relied upon suffers from any infirmity or not. corroboration of evidence of expert not always necessary. In the instant case, the report of expert examined by the Plaintiff namely; K.R. Pille (P.W.-4) is not being discarded on the basis that some adverse remarks have been made by this Court against him in other decisions. That cannot be a rule of general application. On careful analysis of his report it is clear that his report is short and cryptic. He has not given any reason and has recorded the conclusion whereas the report of expert examined by the Defendant namely; Madan Mohan Kakkad (D.W.-4) is elaborate and reliable coupled with surrounding circumstances. Resultantly, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has gravely erred in law while passing the decree in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent. The judgment and decree being illegal is hereby set aside. Costs is quantified at Rs. 1500/- of this appeal to be borne by the Respondent.