JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J:- CM No. 10176 of 2013 Application stands dismissed as infructuous as the main appeal itself has been heard and disposed of today. RSA No. 3777 of 2013: 1. A suit for specific performance of agreement for sale laid by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court and the said decree was affirmed by the first appellate Court. Defendant, therefore, has preferred the present appeal. 2. Plaintiff has contended that the defendant who is owner in possession of the suit property, entered into an agreement to sell the suit property at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000/- per acre and having received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as earnest money, executed an agreement for sale. Contending that the defendant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement in spite of the fact that the plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the present suit was laid. 3. In his written statement, defendant has contended that there was no contract between the parties. There was no agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. In order to grab the property of the defendant, plaintiff had hatched a conspiracy and after having created an agreement for sale, laid the suit. 4. Both the Courts below found that the agreement for sale was in fact executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to sell the suit property at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per acre after having received an earnest money of Rs.4,00,000/-. It was also held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract whereas the defendant was not willing to perform his part of the contract. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently submit that the purchaser, namely, the plaintiff, had not signed in the first page of the agreement for sale. One of the witnesses, namely, Fateh Singh, was not examined by the plaintiff. PW-5 Jagan, another witness cited by the plaintiff, faced a trial under Section 302 IPC. The scribe, PW-1 B.S. Poswal, appeared as an Advocate for the witnesses to the document. Therefore, their testimony cannot be believed at all. One of the witnesses, namely, Fateh Singh, was not examined by the plaintiff. PW-5 Jagan, another witness cited by the plaintiff, faced a trial under Section 302 IPC. The scribe, PW-1 B.S. Poswal, appeared as an Advocate for the witnesses to the document. Therefore, their testimony cannot be believed at all. The testimony of hand-writing and finger prints expert, PW-4, lacked credibility and therefore, the same should have been discarded and the ex-parte testimony adduced on the side of the defendant should have been believed by the Courts below. It is contended that the FSL report filed at the appellate stage should not have been discarded by the first appellate Court. The market value did not match with the value fixed in the agreement for sale. Therefore, it is his submission that the Courts below have not evaluated the evidence on record in proper perspective. 6. A purchaser need not sign an agreement for sale. It is only the vendor who proposes to sell the property shall sign the agreement.. Therefore, an averment in the agreement for sale made by the vendor agreeing to sell the suit property to the prospective purchaser is very much valid in the eyes of law. Even otherwise, the agreement for sale need not be in writing, it can be oral as well. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the agreement for sale cannot be accepted as the purchaser had not subscribed his signatures in the first page of the agreement, did not impress me. 7. It is true that Fateh Singh who figured as one of the witnesses in the agreement for sale was not examined by the plaintiff but the scribe of the document and another witness to the said document were examined by the plaintiff. They have categorically deposed that the defendant having agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per acre, executed an agreement for sale after receiving an earnest money of Rs.4,00,000/-. 8. PW-5 Jagan had faced trial under Section 302 IPC. The scribe, B.S. Poswal, who was examined as PW-1, had appeared as an Advocate for the said witness. Just because one of the witnesses was an accused in a criminal trial and the Scribe was an Advocate for the said witness, the agreement for sale which was otherwise established, cannot be rejected. 9. The scribe, B.S. Poswal, who was examined as PW-1, had appeared as an Advocate for the said witness. Just because one of the witnesses was an accused in a criminal trial and the Scribe was an Advocate for the said witness, the agreement for sale which was otherwise established, cannot be rejected. 9. It is a well settled proposition of law that when two sets of expert’s opinion, one in favour of the plaintiff and the other one in favour of the defendant, were produced by the rival parties, the trial Court is at liberty to discard both of them and evaluate other evidence on record to arrive at a conclusion whether the document was actually executed by the party concerned. Therefore, the FSL report produced by the defendant at the appellate stage has been rightly discarded by the first appellate Court. 10. The market value is totally different from the guideline value maintained by the Government. It is not a rule that the market value would always be higher than the guideline value fixed by the Government. Further, in distress sale transaction, the owner of the property would agree to sell the property far below the market value. Therefore, the value of the property fixed below the alleged market value in the agreement for sale cannot be a ground to discard the agreement of sale entered into between the parties. 11. I find that the Courts below have rightly evaluated the evidence on record and come to a correct conclusion as regards the execution of agreement for sale and the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. There is no merit in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ --------------------