JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. Appellant-plaintiff has laid this first appeal under Section 96 CPC to assail the impugned judgment and decree dated 26th of September, 1989 passed by District Judge, Merta (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby his suit for specific performance of contract has been dismissed. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that appellant-plaintiff laid a suit for specific performance of contract against Roopchand, Kishandas and Badriprasad, inter alia, on the ground that a house owned by Ramchandra S/o Ramnarayan with one shop was purchased by Kishandas and Badriprasad by a registered sale-deed dated 8th of September, 1971 and subsequently for the same property respondent Badriprasad also executed an agreement to sale in favour of the appellant and the requisite title deeds were also handed over to the appellant. It is also averred that the entire transaction completed but documentation and registration was delayed on account of the fact that Badriprasad left Prabatsar for his personal work and to participate in religious activities like performance of Ramlila. Subsequently, when Roopchand was in need of premises, appellant disposed of the said property to him and the possession was also handed over to Roopchand. It was an admitted fact that at the time of the aforesaid transaction between appellant and Roopchand, appellant was not having valid title, therefore, he made endeavour to call upon the vendors from whom he had agreed to purchase the property for executing registered sale-deed in his favour, however, despite repeated requests, respondents did not pay any heed to his requests and the requisite document was not executed. The entire dispute cropped up because the appellant failed to confer valid title on Roopchand in want of his own perfect title and that too eventually led to filing of the suit. The appellant has produced requisite documents about enforcement of agreement to sale by indicating that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 3. The suit filed by appellant was contested by Roopchand alone and other respondents did not file any written statement. In his written statement, Roopchand has completely repudiated the averments contained in the plaint and submitted that the alleged document, i.e., agreement to sale, is a spurious document and no such document was executed in favour of appellant. 3. The suit filed by appellant was contested by Roopchand alone and other respondents did not file any written statement. In his written statement, Roopchand has completely repudiated the averments contained in the plaint and submitted that the alleged document, i.e., agreement to sale, is a spurious document and no such document was executed in favour of appellant. Disputing the very existence of agreement to sale, Roopchand has pleaded in the written statement that suit filed by the appellant is based on false, concocted and fabricated facts and therefore the same is liable to be rejected. Roopchand has also seriously disputed receiving any amount from the appellant pursuant to alleged agreement to sale. 4. Learned trial Court, on basis of pleadings, settled 15 issues for determination and parties led their evidence. On behalf of appellant, in all, eight witnesses appeared and testified on oath. That apart, documents were produced to substantiate the case. To counter the evidence of the appellant, D.W.1 Roopchand himself appeared in the witness box and testified on oath and also examined D.W.2 Ramesh Thakur, handwriting expert so also produced documents. 5. After conclusion of evidence of rival parties, learned trial Court proceeded to decide crucial issues, i.e., Issues Nos.5 & 6, which were having direct ramification on the outcome of the suit, at the threshold. Issue No.4 was settled on the basis of pleadings of the appellant, and therefore, burden to prove the fact that first respondent had agreed to execute sale-deed in favour of respondents No.2 & 3 was obviously on the appellant. The learned trial Court examined this issue in conjunction with pleadings and the evidence, which was available on record, and after examining the evidence, recorded its finding against appellant. While deciding the said issue, learned trial Court has also taken note of the fact that there being no concrete evidence in this behalf, except his own oral testimony and the evidence of other witnesses, who deposed on his behalf are not inspiring the confidence. Thus, finally the Court found that the appellant has failed to discharge its burden and that entailed decision on Issue No.4 against him. 6. Thus, finally the Court found that the appellant has failed to discharge its burden and that entailed decision on Issue No.4 against him. 6. Learned trial Court, thereafter, considered Issues No.5 & 6 threadbare, on the touchstone of documentary and oral evidence, which were available on record, and while recording its finding on Issues No.5 & 6, learned trial Court has delved deep into the matter to unearth truth about the alleged agreement to sale. For construing whether it is a genuine document or spurious, learned trial Court has also taken shelter of the evidence of expert witnesses in terms of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1862. As a matter of fact, both the parties have tendered evidence of experts in support of their cases. On behalf of appellant, P.W.8 Krishan Charan appeared as handwriting expert and on behalf of respondent, an expert D.W.2 Ramesh Thakur deposed on oath. After analysing the evidence of experts, learned trial Court disagreed with the testimony of P.W.8 Krishan Charan for the reason that the opinion expressed by the witness had not been drawn with forensic and scientific approach as the witness did not produce negatives of specimen signature before the Court. As against the testimony of expert witness of the appellant (P.W.8) Krishan Charan, the learned trial Court has placed reliance, on the testimony of D.W.2 Ramesh Kumar Thakur, precisely for the reason that he made sincere endeavour to analyse the impugned signatures. Therefore, in totality, on weighing the evidence of both the experts and examining the signatures thoroughly, the learned trial found the evidence of D.W.2 appears to be more probable than the evidence of Krishan Charan. 7. True it is that the evidence of an expert is not binding on the Court but the Court, after analysing evidence, can very well take shelter of that evidence for arriving at its conclusion. Section 45 of the Evidence Act envisages with clarity and precision that Court can form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to the identity of handwriting or finger impressions. The purpose of an expert opinion is primarily to assist the Court in arriving at a final conclusion. Section 45 of the Evidence Act envisages with clarity and precision that Court can form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to the identity of handwriting or finger impressions. The purpose of an expert opinion is primarily to assist the Court in arriving at a final conclusion. Such opinion is not binding on the Court but in case any other competent eye-witness or trustworthy witness of credence, who can throw light on the transaction is available, the Court, in its jurisdiction, is authorised to discard the expert opinion. In the instant case, the learned trial Court has made sincere endeavour to analyse two expert opinions tendered by rival parties with objectivity and eventually found that opinion of the expert witness, who appeared on behalf of respondent is more reliable and trustworthy. 8. It is also pertinent to note here that even after considering the expert evidence, the learned Court below in its discretion has also examined the signatures objectively and thereafter has concurred with the opinion of the expert, who appeared on behalf of respondent. In that background, Issues No.5 & 6 were also decided against appellant and the agreement to sale as well as the signatures were found to be spurious and unworthy of any credit. In such circumstances, learned trial Court after deciding Issues No.5 & 6 against the appellant also decided other issues, which were dependent on the finding on these issues, against the appellant, and dismissed the suit. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and examined entire record of the case. 10. After examining the matter thoroughly, more particularly the evidence of experts analysed by the learned trial Court, in my considered opinion, the decision, which is arrived at by the learned Court below, is based on sound appreciation of evidence. 11. The point for determination before this Court is only to see whether the Court below has committed any illegality in arriving at its conclusion on Issues No.4 to 6. 12. Upon examining the evidence of the experts and even considering the documents, which were part of the record, i.e., agreement to sale as well as receipt, in my opinion, the conclusions of the learned Court below are per-se just and reasonable. In totality. 12. Upon examining the evidence of the experts and even considering the documents, which were part of the record, i.e., agreement to sale as well as receipt, in my opinion, the conclusions of the learned Court below are per-se just and reasonable. In totality. The conclusions drawn by the learned Court below, on appreciation of evidence, are also satisfying the prudence. Moreover, there were cogent reasons for the learned trial Court to give credence to the testimony of D.W.2 Rakesh Thakur vis-a-vis testimony of P.W.8 Krishan Charan. 13. There remains no quarrel that identification of the handwriting of an individual is not an easy task for a layman, and a layman cannot express definite opinion about the same and in this behalf definite opinion can only be tendered by a handwriting expert. In this matter, the learned trial Court has analysed the evidence of both the experts objectively to determine credibility of their testimony in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case. That apart, learned trial Court has also made endeavour to independently examine the signatures and thereafter has concurred with opinion of the expert witness, who had appeared on behalf of respondent to discard the testimony of the expert appeared on behalf of appellant and finally concluded that the documents i.e. agreement to sale and receipt are not genuine but spurious containing forged signatures of the respondent. 14. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the findings and conclusions of learned trial Court on Issues No.4 to 6 are based on proper appreciation of evidence and the conclusions drawn by learned Court below are supported by the opinion of expert on the subject, which cannot be categorised as infirm or perverse in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. Thus, I am not persuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court in the matter. Consequently, instant appeal fails and same is, hereby, dismissed.