JUDGMENT : At the time of admission I have heard the arguments of the appellants’ counsel and the respondent’s counsel. 2. The substantial question of law that arises is whether the first appellate court is legally justified in placing reliance on the experts evidence by ignoring the evidence of other four witnesses PW.1 to 4 for dismissing the appeal? Necessary facts to be mentioned here are that the appellants are the children of the original plaintiff Noorulla Khan who instituted the suit O.S.No.147/2011 in the court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur for enforcing the agreement dated 31.07.2006 said to have been executed by the defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant are the brothers. It appears that the defendant Amanulla Khan filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.427/1992 against the plaintiff and obtained a decree in respect of the suit property. Subsequently the plaintiff came up with a plea that on 31.07.2006 the defendant executed an agreement of sale in his favour agreeing to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- and received an earnest money of Rs.5,00,000/-. Since the defendant failed to executed the sale deed in terms of the agreement, the plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff examined four witnesses and produced four documents Ex.P.1 to 4. From the defendant’s side he himself adduced evidence as DW.1 and produced one document, Ex.D.1. On 19.10.2011 the trail court decreed the suit. Challenging this judgment and decree, the defendant preferred an appeal R.A.No.101/2011 before the District Court, Kolar. The said appeal came to be allowed and suit remanded to the trial court with a direction to secure the opinion of the hand writing expert. Therefore the trial court, after remand, referred the disputed signature of the defendant on the agreement of sale to an hand writing expert. Since he gave his report stating that the signature appearing on the agreement did not tally with the admitted signature of defendant, the trial court came to conclusion that defendant had not executed the agreement of sale and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the sons of the plaintiff preferred an appeal RA.No.64/2014 to the District Court, Kolar. The learned Addl. District Judge who decided the appeal concurred with the findings of the trial judge and dismissed the appeal and hence this second appeal. 3. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the sons of the plaintiff preferred an appeal RA.No.64/2014 to the District Court, Kolar. The learned Addl. District Judge who decided the appeal concurred with the findings of the trial judge and dismissed the appeal and hence this second appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants argues that if the judgment of the first appellate court is read, it shows that the first appellate court which is the last fact finding body has not applied its mind. It has simply relied upon the opinion of the expert and has not bestowed its attention to the evidence given by the plaintiff’s witnesses, PW-1 to 4. He argues that the first appellate court should have applied its mind and evaluated the findings of all the four witnesses examined from the plaintiff’s side before referring to the evidence given by the hand writing expert and in this way committed an error in not appreciating the evidence properly. In support of his argument he refers to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gulazar Ali Vs. State of H.P. – [ (1998) 2 SCC 192 ], Madina Begum and another Vs. Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey and others – [ (2016) 15 SCC 322 and Laliteshwar Prasad Singh and others Vs. S.P. Srivastava (dead) through legal representatives [ (2017) 2 SCC 415 ]. 4. He further argues that since the trial court has perversely appreciated the evidence, there is a case for remand so that the first appellate court can re-appreciate the evidence and give its finding. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. They were not on talking terms and for this reason it is highly impossible to believe that the defendant would have executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. He argues that the trial court has discussed the evidence of the plaintiff’s witnesses and has also referred to the evidence given by the expert for dismissing the suit. Since the first appellate court has concurred with the findings given by the trial court, there is no need to discuss the entire evidence elaborately. He argues that the trial court has discussed the evidence of the plaintiff’s witnesses and has also referred to the evidence given by the expert for dismissing the suit. Since the first appellate court has concurred with the findings given by the trial court, there is no need to discuss the entire evidence elaborately. He argues further that even though the judgment of the first appellate court does not show the discussion on the evidence given by PW-1 to 4, it can be made out that their evidence was also taken into consideration before accepting the evidence given by the hand writing expert. According to him, the judgment of the first appellate court is well reasoned and therefore there is no need to interfere with the same. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is to be stated that since the first appellate court is the last fact finding body, it is necessary that the first appellate court has to re-appreciate the evidence. The first appellate court has raised points for discussion. The first point is : “Whether the trial court is justified in holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendant has agreed to sell the suit schedule property under the agreement of sale dated 31.07.2006?” 7. Having raised the point for determination in this manner, it was necessary for the first appellate court to have referred to the evidence of PW-1 to 4 and DW-1. The witnesses of the parties are presumed to have information of transaction to the extent of their involvement; and therefore their evidence should be evaluated by the court. Their evidence can be believed or disbelieved; this process of evaluation depends on how the witnesses have fared in the cross examination. If an expert is appointed, his evidence also needs strict scrutiny, but his evidence alone cannot be based discarding the evidence given by the witnesses who are examined by parties. There is no bar for relying on experts evidence alone, but before that the oral evidence adduced by the other witnesses should be assessed, and their evidence should appear to be not credit worthy. 8. There is no bar for relying on experts evidence alone, but before that the oral evidence adduced by the other witnesses should be assessed, and their evidence should appear to be not credit worthy. 8. On perusal of the judgment of the first appellate court in this context, I find it apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laliteshwar Prasad Singh (Supra) where it has been clearly held the manner in which the judgment of the first appellate court must be written. “13. An appellate court is the final court of facts. The judgment of the appellate court must therefore reflect court’s application of mind and record its findings supported by reasons. The law relating to powers and duties of the first appellate court is well fortified by the legal provisions and judicial pronouncements. Considering the nature and scope of duty of first appellate court, in Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar (2015) 1 SCC 391 , it was held as under (SCC pp. 394-96, paras 12-15) :- “12. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 , this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 188-89, para 15) “15. … The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. … while reversing a finding of fact the appellate court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it.” The above view has been followed by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Madhukar v. Sangram (2001) 4 SCC 756 , wherein it was reiterated that sitting as a court of first appeal, it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. 13. In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (2005) 10 SCC 243 , this Court stated as under: (SCC p. 244, para 3) “3. The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title.” 14. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa (2005) 12 SCC 303 , while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 303, para 2) ‘2. A court of first appeal can re-appreciate the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion’. 15. Again in B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy (2010) 13 SCC 530 , this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words: (SCC pp. 530-31, paras 3-5) “3. How the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate court/High Court has been considered by this Court in various decisions. Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state : (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 , SCC p. 188, para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram (2001) 4 SCC 756 SCC p. 758, para 5.) 5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In our view, the judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our careful perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of both parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and remand the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law”. 9. In the light of above, it can be very clearly stated that the first appellate court has not applied its mind properly while arriving at the conclusion that the suit has to be dismissed. In this view of the matter, I come to conclusion that the first appellate court has committed an error in law and therefore the appeal deserves to be allowed and remanded to the first appellate court for reconsideration. Hence the following : ORDER i. Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment of the first appellate court in R.A.No.64/2014 on the file of the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar is set aside. iii. Hence the following : ORDER i. Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment of the first appellate court in R.A.No.64/2014 on the file of the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar is set aside. iii. Case is remanded to the court of 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar which shall decide the first appeal once again strictly in accordance with law. iv. The parties or their respective counsel shall appear before the 1st Addl. District Court, Kolar on 01.02.2018 without fail. In view of the age of the suit, the first appellate court may expedite the disposal of this appeal, within three months from the date of receipt of the records. In view of the remand, 75% of the court fee shall be refunded to the appellants.