JUDGMENT : By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Court of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2016 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribag in Title Appeal no. 13 of 2016 whereby and whereunder, learned First Appellate Court, dismissed the appeal on contest but without costs. 3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the suit land is the Raiyati of the defendant and the defendant in need of money, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for selling the suit land for a consideration amount of Rs. 27,750/-and an agreement was executed by the defendant by putting his LTI on 29.06.2001 and the defendant was paid Rs. 10,000/-. The sale deed was to be executed as soon as possible and the defendant thereafter delivered the possession to the plaintiff and the plaintiff came in peaceful, cultivating possession over the suit land. The plaintiff approached the defendant to execute the sale deed but the defendant did not oblige to the plaintiff. The plaintiff went several times to the defendant to take the balance consideration amount but the defendant did not receive the balance consideration amount nor executed the sale deed but the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the balance consideration amount and was still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the plaintiff filed the suit for relief of: (a) The decree for specific part performance of contract to be passed in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land. (b) Decree of temporary and permanent injunction against the defendant. 4. The defendant in his written statement, besides challenging the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds further denied the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint and specifically pleaded; having not entered into any agreement with the plaintiff or ever having put his LTI in the presence of the witnesses on any document relating to the plaintiff. The defendant specifically pleaded that the document alleged to be an agreement by the plaintiff, is in fact, a forged document prepared by the plaintiff with the collusion of the witnesses to grab the property of the defendant who is mentally disordered and is of unsound mind and he cannot even speak. The defendant specifically pleaded that the document alleged to be an agreement by the plaintiff, is in fact, a forged document prepared by the plaintiff with the collusion of the witnesses to grab the property of the defendant who is mentally disordered and is of unsound mind and he cannot even speak. The defendant learnt about the agreement when the notice of the suit was received and thereafter, he contacted the plaintiff on 15.08.2004 and enquired about the alleged agreement but the plaintiff abused and threatened of dire consequences and on 25.08.2004 at about 6.00 PM, when the defendant was in his house, the plaintiff came, using filthy language, assaulted the defendant with slaps and threatened to execute the sale deed and also tried to outrage the modesty of the wife of the defendant and then, the defendant approached the police, but the police refused to take any action and then, the defendant filed Complaint Case No. 738 of 2004 before learned CJM, Hazaribag. The defendant also denied receiving Rs. 10,000/-from the plaintiff. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, learned trial court settled the following eight issues : I. Whether the suit of plaintiff is maintainable in its present form? II. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder or mis-joinder of necessary parties? III. Is the suit barred by law of Estoppel, Waiver, Acquiescence and Res-Judicata? IV. Whether suit of plaintiff is barred by law of Limitation? V. Whether plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the present suit? VI. Whether there was any agreement to sell the suit property between plaintiff and defendant on 29.06.2001? VII. Whether plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract for sale and is still ready for the same within knowledge of defendant? VIII. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed for? IX. Whether plaintiff is entitled for any other relief? 6. In support of their case, the plaintiff examined nine witnesses and proved the documents which has been marked Exhibit 1 to 6. On the other hand, from the side of the defendants, five witnesses were also examined. 7. Learned trial court first took up issue no. IX. Whether plaintiff is entitled for any other relief? 6. In support of their case, the plaintiff examined nine witnesses and proved the documents which has been marked Exhibit 1 to 6. On the other hand, from the side of the defendants, five witnesses were also examined. 7. Learned trial court first took up issue no. VI and after considering the evidence in the record, came to conclusion that the plaintiff could not successfully prove the execution of the alleged agreement to sale dated 29.06.2001 legally and validly and the sale dated 29.06.2001 is the basis of the case and in such situation, it can be stated that there was no any agreement to sell between the plaintiff and the defendant, as averred in the plaint and decided the issue no. VI against the plaintiff. 8. Learned trial court next took up issue no. II and came to the conclusion that the suit is not bad for non-joinder or misjoinder of necessary party. 9. In respect of the issue no. III, next taken up by learned trial court, learned trial court has held that the suit is not barred by the law of estoppel, waiver, acquiescence and res-judicata. 10. In respect of issue no. IV, next taken up by learned trial court, learned trial court concluded that the suit is not barred by law of limitation. In respect of Issue No. VII, then taken up by learned trial court, learned trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his averment regarding his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as contented in the plaint and decided the issue no. VII against the plaintiff. 11. In respect of issue no. V, then taken up by learned trial court, learned trial court concluded that the plaintiff had no valid and reasonable cause of action to institute the suit. 12. In respect of issue no. I, then taken up by learned trial court, learned trial court held that the suit is not maintainable in its present form. 13. In respect of issue no. 12. In respect of issue no. I, then taken up by learned trial court, learned trial court held that the suit is not maintainable in its present form. 13. In respect of issue no. VIII and IX which were taken up together, learned trial court came to the conclusion that the main relief sought is related to execution of the sale deed by the defendant, cannot be granted to the plaintiff as the plaintiff has not proved the payment of the alleged consideration amount to the defendant and has not been able to establish his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and learned trial court being the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Hazaribag dismissed the Title suit no. 48 of 2004 vide its judgment dated 29.04.2016. 14. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 13 of 2016, in the court of Principal District Judge, Hazaribag which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned First Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment. 15. Learned First Appellate Court made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record and first took up issue no. VI and VII together. Learned First Appellate Court considered that though it is the case of the plaintiff that consequent upon the agreement to sale, the defendant handed over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff but the witnesses examined in this case, including that of the plaintiff have categorically stated that the possession of the suit land is with the defendant, which falsifies the very basis of the claim of the plaintiff to be not true that the defendant handed over the suit land to the plaintiff after the agreement. Learned First Appellate Court also considered that though, according to the plaintiff, the agreement was entered upon on 29.06.2001 and on that very date the defendant had shown his intention to sell the land to the plaintiff and on the same day, the agreement was scribed and executed and it is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant brought one stamp of Rs. 5/-to scribe the document but from the stamp paper, it appeared that it was purchased on 06.06.2001 which is not in consonance with the case of the plaintiff as to how, this stamp paper was purchased on 06.06.2001 when there was no intention by the defendant to enter into an agreement on that day and such intention was developed only on 29.06.2001. 16. Learned First Appellate court also considered that from the evidence of the PWs 1, 2, 3 and 6, that the exhibit 1, the alleged agreement to sell, was prepared in the flour mill of the witness-Dinesh Kumar being the PW2 but the same contradicts the deposition of PW4 that the Exhibit 1 was scribed and executed at Kutchery at Hazaribag which created doubt regarding the place of execution of the alleged agreement to sale marked as exhibit 1. Learned First Appellate Court also considered that in the affidavit filed in the shape of Examination-in-chief of PW4, he has nowhere stated regarding payment of alleged advance by him to the defendant rather, the plaintiff has made a negative statement by stating that the allegation of the defendant that he was not paid any amount by the plaintiff is wrong. Learned First Appellate court also considered that PW4 who is deed writer -who scribed the document and in his presence, the witnesses as also the defendant, put their signature and thumb impression but the same was in violation of the law, which requires that if there is thumb impression, the same must be properly executed and identified and none of the persons who have allegedly witnessed the document or even the scribe become the identifier and executed the document for or on behalf of the said defendant, who allegedly has put his thumb impression. Learned First Appellate Court also observed that since the defendant was denying his thumb impression and claiming the same to be forged, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff that to get the thumb impression properly examined by an expert having knowledge of finger printing to ascertain that the thumb impression is that of the defendant. Learned First Appellate Court also observed that since the defendant was denying his thumb impression and claiming the same to be forged, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff that to get the thumb impression properly examined by an expert having knowledge of finger printing to ascertain that the thumb impression is that of the defendant. Learned First Appellate Court did not give much importance to the statement of DW2, that she was present at the time of the agreement by observing that from the said statement it cannot be derived that she was present at the time of the execution of the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. Learned First Appellate Court also took note of the deposition of PW3 in para 2 of his cross-examination, wherein, he claimed to put his signature on the agreement to sale, which was prepared in a Panchayati called to settle the dispute between the parties and came to the conclusion that the evidence of the witnesses brought on record are not confirming with the statement of the other witnesses. Learned First Appellate court also considered that the defendant has not even studied up to class I and he has put his thumb impression, to show that there was valid agreement entered into between the parties to sell the suit land and a cogent evidence ought to have been put forth by the plaintiff but the evidence put forth by the plaintiff completely lacks the same and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not brought reasoned evidence to show that there was any valid agreement entered into between the parties and there was due execution of the agreement by the defendant and thus the very agreement alleged to have been entered into between the parties appears to be false and hence the same fails and thus the finding of learned trial court regarding issue no. VI was upheld. 17. In respect of issue no. VII, it was observed by learned First Appellate Court, that when there was no agreement between the parties, subsequent part of the performance of the part contract does not arise. 18. Learned First Appellate Court took note of the stipulation in the alleged agreement to sale marked as Ext. VI was upheld. 17. In respect of issue no. VII, it was observed by learned First Appellate Court, that when there was no agreement between the parties, subsequent part of the performance of the part contract does not arise. 18. Learned First Appellate Court took note of the stipulation in the alleged agreement to sale marked as Ext. 1, wherein it has been provided for that if the defendant will not execute the deed then the plaintiff will send the balance consideration amount of Rs.17,750/-, to the defendant through the money order and get the deed executed through the court and there is nothing in the record to show that the plaintiff ever tendered a money order of Rs. 100/-, what to talk about Rs. 17,750/-to the defendant to show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract nor the plaintiff could bring in the record to suggest that he even deposited the requisite amount in the treasury to purchase the stamp paper for preparation of the sale deed, hence, the plaintiff has failed to show that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and concurred with the finding of learned trial court in respect of the issue no. VII as well. 19. Learned First Appellate Court then took issue no. IV and found fault with the conclusion of the learned trial court; as learned trial court came to the conclusion that the suit is not barred by limitation by observing that as the law mandates regarding limitation that it will start when the agreement will be entered upon, but when learned trial court itself came to the conclusion that no agreement was entered into; hence the question of starting the limitation does not arise from 29.06.2001, hence the issue of limitation ought to have been decided against the plaintiff by learned trial court and it set aside the said finding regarding the issue no. IV by learned trial court. 20. Learned First Appellate Court then considered the issue no. II and III together and concurred with the finding of the trial court that the suit would not come under the purview of non-joinder or mis-joinder of the necessary parties and the plea of Estoppel, Waiver, Acquiescence and Res-Judicata are also not attracted. 21. In Respect of issue nos. 20. Learned First Appellate Court then considered the issue no. II and III together and concurred with the finding of the trial court that the suit would not come under the purview of non-joinder or mis-joinder of the necessary parties and the plea of Estoppel, Waiver, Acquiescence and Res-Judicata are also not attracted. 21. In Respect of issue nos. I, V, VIII and IX, taken up by learned First Appellate Court, learned First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of learned trial court that the plaintiff is not entitled for relief claimed for. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant, draws attention of the court to Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC, as well as the Section 73 and Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and submits that duty is always cast upon the court to order for verification of the document by an expert like fingerprint expert but learned courts below erred by observing that it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to get the agreement to sale, claimed to have been executed by defendant between the defendant and him verified, by sending it to the fingerprint expert. It is next submitted that both learned courts below could not appreciate the evidence in the record, in their right perspective and failed to consider the admission of DW4 i.e., the defendant himself, wherein he has stated that he has received the lawyer’s notice but has not relied upon the same, hence, the judgment and decree passed by both learned courts below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed after formulating the appropriate substantial question of law. 23. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Musheer Khan alias Badshah Khan and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 2 SCC 748 , para 34 of which reads as under:- “34. It will be noticed that under the Evidence Act, the word “admissibility” has very rarely been used. The emphasis is on relevant facts. In a way relevancy and admissibility have been virtually equated under the Evidence Act. But one thing is clear that evidence of fingerprint expert is not substantive evidence. It will be noticed that under the Evidence Act, the word “admissibility” has very rarely been used. The emphasis is on relevant facts. In a way relevancy and admissibility have been virtually equated under the Evidence Act. But one thing is clear that evidence of fingerprint expert is not substantive evidence. Such evidence can only be used to corroborate some items of substantive evidence which are otherwise on record.” (Emphasis supplied) that the evidence of a fingerprint expert which comes under the category of expert evidence under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not substantive piece of evidence, and the same principle is applicable to fingerprinting expert also. 24. Now coming to the facts of the case, though, as a passing remark, learned First Appellate Court has mentioned in the impugned judgment that as the defendant has categorically denied the execution of the agreement to sale upon which allegedly he put his thumb impression and has specifically taken the plea that the same is fraudulent one and it was incumbent upon plaintiffs to get the said Exhibit 1 verified by the fingerprint expert but it has not disbelieved the execution of the said agreement for sale, which has been marked as Exhibit 1 for the same being not sent to the fingerprint expert but for other substantive and plausible reasons. The reasons being though it is the case of the plaintiff that upon it entering into the agreement, the defendant delivered the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff but the plaintiff and its witness admitted that the defendant had been in possession of the suit land, which is also evident from the relief claimed in the plaint itself; wherein part of the prayer made is that the possession be also given to the plaintiff through the process of court but the question arises that if it is the case of the plaintiff, that the defendant handed over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff and there is no pleading of the plaintiff that he was ever dispossessed then, from where the prayer made by the plaintiff arises for giving the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff through the process of the court. 25. 25. It is also evident from the facts in the record and also taken note of by learned courts below, that the agreement was instantly decided to be entered into by the parties on 29.06.2001, then how come, the stamp paper allegedly used for such agreement was purchased on 06.06.2001. Further as already indicated above, the plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract by not sending money to the defendant as stipulated in the agreement through the money order. Hence, after going through the evidence in the record, this court is of the considered view that the findings of the fact arrived at by both the courts below, is not by ignoring or excluding relevant materials or taking into consideration the irrelevant materials nor such finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse. 26. Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by both the courts below and there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 27. Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but, in the circumstances, without any cost. 28. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the courts concerned forthwith.