JUDGMENT : Budihal R.B., J. This is the appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2011 passed in Regular Appeal No. 112/2009 on the file of Fast Track Court-I, Raichur confirming the judgment and decree in dismissing the suit in suit for specific performance of contract by the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 6.10.2009 by Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) at Raichur in O.S. No. 60/2005. The appellant challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below on the grounds as mentioned in the appeal memorandum. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and also the learned counsel for the Respondents/defendants on admission. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff during the course of arguments made submission that though the deceased father of the Respondent No. 1 originally entered into an agreement of sale in the year 1993 and executed Ex.P-1 for the sale of the suit schedule property for total consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and at that time received consideration of Rs. 20,000/-, but in the meanwhile i.e., in the year 1994 the father of the Respondent No. 1 expired. It is also further contention of the learned counsel that when the father of the Respondent No. 1 was suffering from ailment, the Respondent No. 1 entered into fresh agreement of sale and again he borrowed Rs. 20,000/- for the treatment of his father. It is also submitted that subsequently the Respondent No. 1 also received Rs. 10,000/- and executed fresh agreement of sale under Ex.P-3 dated 11.2.2002. The counsel also made submission that in the subsequent agreement of sale also there is mention about the original agreement of sale entered into between deceased father and Respondent No. 1. The counsel submitted that in support of the plaintiffs case plaintiff examined witnesses on his side before the Trial Court and all the witnesses i.e., PWs 2 to 6 who consistently deposed in their oral evidence that in their presence the father of the Respondent No. 1 executed agreement of sale under Ex.P-1. Hence counsel submitted that looking to the oral evidence of the witnesses on the side of the plaintiff, so also the evidence of the plaintiff before the Trial Court they have established due execution of agreement of sale Ex.P-1. Hence counsel submitted that looking to the oral evidence of the witnesses on the side of the plaintiff, so also the evidence of the plaintiff before the Trial Court they have established due execution of agreement of sale Ex.P-1. It is also his contention even subsequent to agreements under Ex.P-2 and P-3 were also established by satisfactory and cogent evidence of the witnesses. Hence, he submitted that in spite of such evidence being placed before the Court, the Trial Court only on the ground that since the defendants have disputed the signatures on the agreement of sale dismissed the suit by wrongly reading the evidence on record. Learned counsel submitted that it is observed by the Trial Court that the plaintiff has not taken any steps in getting the agreement of sale referred to handwriting expert to get the opinion in the matter. In this connection the learned counsel made submission that under section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Trial Court itself vested with such powers to make the comparison of the signatures in order to come 10 the conclusion whether the said signature on the agreement of sale Ex.P-1 with the admitted signatures of the deceased father of the Respondent No. 1 were tallying with each other or not. The Trial Court has not at all made such exercise for the comparison of the signatures and even the Trial Court gone to the extent of observing that the signatures on the agreement of sale were not at all proved by the plaintiff. Hence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Learned counsel further made the submission that in this appeal the appellants have filed the application under Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC R/w Section 45 of the Evidence Act and also under section 151 of CPC. Hence the learned counsel submitted that in view of these things, the matter requires consideration in this appeal as substantial question of law involved in the above appeal. 4. Per contra the learned counsel for the Respondent/defendant during the course of his arguments made the submission that the plaintiff led the evidence of himself as well as the attesting witnesses to the agreement of sale, so also the scribe of the said document. 4. Per contra the learned counsel for the Respondent/defendant during the course of his arguments made the submission that the plaintiff led the evidence of himself as well as the attesting witnesses to the agreement of sale, so also the scribe of the said document. After considering the evidence of plaintiff as well as his witnesses, the Trial court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove due execution of the agreement of sale. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that looking to the evidence on record, the execution of the agreement itself is not established. Now the purpose of filing the application to refer the document to expert opinion will not serve any purpose. He also made the submission that there is concurrent findings of the Courts below regarding factual aspects of the matter. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence he submitted that the appeal is to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. 5. I have perused the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum and also the judgment and decree of the Courts below. The brief facts of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the deceased Shaw Alam S/o Shaik Imam sab being the absolute owner of the suit schedule property had entered into an agreement of sale on 2.10.1993 agreeing to sell the northern portion of the property in municipal No. 12-1-40(old) 12-1-43(new) to the extent of 10 x 60 feet for a total consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and had received Rs. 20,000/- as part payment. It is further averred in the plaint that in furtherance of the said agreement he has executed an agreement of sale and had delivered the possession as well. According to the plaintiff/appellant even earlier to this agreement of sale right from the year 1983 he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as tenant thereof under the lease agreement executed by Shaw Alam and plaintiff running Engineering workshop in the said premises. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff/appellant that on 8.8.1994 defendant obtained sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses of his father and thereafter executed another agreement of sale on 11.1.2002 in continuation of the agreement of sale executed by his father and acknowledged, the consideration amount received by his father and himself on 8.8.1994. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff/appellant that on 8.8.1994 defendant obtained sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses of his father and thereafter executed another agreement of sale on 11.1.2002 in continuation of the agreement of sale executed by his father and acknowledged, the consideration amount received by his father and himself on 8.8.1994. Hence it is the contention of the plaintiff that totally out of Rs. 60,000/-consideration amount Rs. 50,000/- has already paid and remaining consideration amount of Rs. 10,000/- was due to be paid. The plaintiff was ever ready and walling to perform his part of contract and he has issued legal notice to the defendant. The defendant has not taken the notice, ultimately it was published in the newspaper. The defendant also replied through the newspaper. In spite of that as the defendant refused to execute the registered sale deed by receiving the remaining consideration amount of Rs. 10,000/-, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit seeking for specific performance of contract. 6. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement wherein the}' have contended that the father of the defendant Mchd. Shaha Alam has let his property bearing municipal No. 12-1-141 measuring 20 feet east-west and 10 feet north-south for lease for eleven months from 1.6.1983 at a monthly rent of Rs. 225/- to the plaintiff by executing a deed of lease dated 19.6.1983. The original deed is also produced. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property as alleged nor he has constructed the engineering workshop in it since 1983. The plaintiff is mischievous element and he is bent upon grabbing the valuable property of the defendant by creating false, fabricated and forged documents with the help of his mischievous friends and relatives. The documents filed by the plaintiff i.e., three agreements, on demand promissory note and consideration receipts said to have been executed by late father of defendant and defendants are on insufficient stamp paper and hence the same cannot be admitted in evidence. The defendants have produced two documents i.e., tax paid receipts which are evident that old municipal No. 12-1-40 and the new municipal number is 12-1-42 and not as municipal number 12-1-43 as contended by the plaintiff. On these grounds, the defendants sought for dismissal of the said suit. 7. On both sides, oral evidence was led by the parties. The defendants have produced two documents i.e., tax paid receipts which are evident that old municipal No. 12-1-40 and the new municipal number is 12-1-42 and not as municipal number 12-1-43 as contended by the plaintiff. On these grounds, the defendants sought for dismissal of the said suit. 7. On both sides, oral evidence was led by the parties. Both the sides have produced number of documents. Thereafter evaluation of the materials on record oral and documentary, ultimately the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the agreement of sale by defendant's father as well as the Respondent No. 1 and ultimately dismissed the suit. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff/appellant herein preferred the first appeal before the Fast Track Court-I Raichur in Regular Appeal No. 112/2009 and the Appellate Court also after re-appreciating the entire materials, by its judgment dated 17th August 2011, dismissed the said appeal holding that no illegality has been committed by the Trial Court. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by Courts below, now the appellant is before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. 10. I have perused the materials placed on record. Looking to the judgment of the Trial Court, it transpires that during the course of cross examination the plaintiff has admitted that he has not furnished the boundaries to the said property. Even with regard to identity of the property also, though it is the contention of the plaintiff that old municipal number is 12-1-40 which is given new number, according to the plaintiff municipal number 12-1-43. But as per the defendants' case the old municipal number has been changed and new number that was assigned municipal No. 12-1-42. Looking to the evidence of witnesses on the plaintiff side it clearly goes to show that their evidence is not consistent with regard to entering into agreement of sale and the father of the defendant receiving consideration amount of Rs. 20,000/- and executing agreement of sale. The Trial Court from page No. 14 in his judgment observed with regard to cross examination portion of PW 1 as well as other witnesses on the side of the plaintiff. 20,000/- and executing agreement of sale. The Trial Court from page No. 14 in his judgment observed with regard to cross examination portion of PW 1 as well as other witnesses on the side of the plaintiff. It is observed by the Trial Court, during the course of cross examination of PW 1 he has stated that suit property was bearing No. 12-1-14 to 12-1-43. He does not know if the number of the suit property is mentioned as 12-1-141 or not in his plaint. He does not know if the number of the suit property is mentioned as 12-1-141 old, 12-1-43 new in his plaint. He does not know whether the property bearing No. 12-1-141 was belonging to the defendant or not. He has admitted that it is true to say that Ex.P-1 to P-3, the boundaries of the suit property has not been mentioned. In the cross examination it was suggested to the witness PW 1 that Shalamsab has not put his signature on Ex.P-1. He also denied the suggestion that they have forged the signature of Shalamsab on Ex.P-1 and similarly he has forged the signature of defendant on Ex.P-2 to P-5. The Trial Court has also referred to the cross examination of other witnesses also and observed during the course of cross examination of PW 2, he has stated that he had not gone through the documents pertaining to the suit land before he writes Ex.P-1 and P 2. Looking to the cross examination of PW 3 he admitted in his evidence that it is true to say that he cannot read and write Kannada and English languages. Ex.P-3 and P-4 are in English language. He does not know the property number of the suit property. He does not know whether the property is written or not in Ex.P-3 and P-4. But he deposed that he was informed the contents of Ex.P-3 and P-4 in Urdu language, but he personally do not know what is written in Ex.P-3 and P-4. He does not know who has written Ex.P-3, but one Abdul Khader has written Ex.P-4. It is true to say that x' mark is put at the place where he has put his signature. He does not know who has put 'x' mark on Ex.P-3 and P-4. It is true that plaintiff is his friend. He does not know who has written Ex.P-3, but one Abdul Khader has written Ex.P-4. It is true to say that x' mark is put at the place where he has put his signature. He does not know who has put 'x' mark on Ex.P-3 and P-4. It is true that plaintiff is his friend. Looking to the evidence of PW 4 another witness on the side of the plaintiff, he deposed and denied the suggestion that the signature appearing on his affidavit as well as on Ex.P-4 and P-5 are different, but the witness says in Ex.P-4 and P-5 he has put his signatures in small size but in the affidavit he has put his signature in the little big. He does not know' where the stamp papers Ex.P-4 and P-5 were purchased. He admitted as true that no amount was given in his presence by the plaintiff to the defendant. Looking to the evidence of PW 5 in the cross examination he deposed that he does not remember the denomination of the notes that were given before him on that day to the defendant by the plaintiff. PW 6 deposed in his evidence that both the plaintiff and defendant had invited him to come and attest Ex.P-2. Plaintiff is his relative. He put the signature on Ex.P-2 with the same pen which was used by the other persons who were present there. He does not know where is the house No. 12-1-40 and 12-1-43. He does not know if they are located on the Chandraknt talkies road, Raichur. 11. So looking to this oral evidence of plaintiff as well as the witnesses on the side of the plaintiff which has been observed by the Trial Court that, firstly the identity of the property is not clearly established as there are no boundaries mentioned in any of three documents. Not only that even with regard to exact property number, there is no consistent and acceptable evidence on the side of the plaintiff. Looking to the documents produced by the plaintiff regarding number of the property old as well as new one. Therefore, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove the agreements Ex.P-1 to P-3 with acceptable evidence. Accordingly the suit was dismissed. Looking to the documents produced by the plaintiff regarding number of the property old as well as new one. Therefore, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove the agreements Ex.P-1 to P-3 with acceptable evidence. Accordingly the suit was dismissed. When the matter taken up before the first Appellate Court, the first Appellate Court after re-appreciating the materials on record, it also comes to the conclusion that the dismissal of the suit is in accordance with law and no illegality has been committed by the Trial Court. 12. Now it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein that when the Trial Court has observed that the plaintiff has not taken any steps, to send the documents for expert opinion to know whether the signature on Ex.F-1 is that of father of defendant No. 1, so also signatures on Ex.P-2 and P-3. So on that ground now the learned counsel for the appellant filed application under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC R/w section 45 of the Evidence Act R/w section 151 of CPC requesting the Court in this Regular Second Appeal to refer the documents for expert opinion. 13. When it is definite case of the plaintiff that agreement of sale is attested by the witnesses and witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court. The scribe of the document is also examined before the Trial Court and their evidence is appreciated by the Trial Court, the question of sending the document for expert opinion does not arise at all. Getting opinion of the expert is when there are no means to prove the document, then in that case as a last resort, the Court has to refer the document for expert opinion and expert opinion it is opinion evidence. When there are direct witnesses to the documents i.e., attesting witnesses and the scribe of the document. When their evidence is not acceptable and trustworthy, the contention of the appellant before this Court cannot be accepted that it is to be sent for expert's opinion. No grounds in this Regular Second Appeal. Perusing the entire materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that no substantial question of law' involved in this appeal. There is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in the admission stage itself. Consequently the application I.A. No. 1/2015 is also dismissed.