JUDGMENT : Jyoti Mulimani, J. Sri.Abdul Khadar., counsel for the appellant, and Sri.G.V.Shashikumar., counsel for respondents 1 and 2, have appeared in person. 2. For convenience’s sake, the status and ranking of the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court. 3. This is an appeal from the Court of XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16) 4. The plaint averments are as under: The defendant - Sri.M.P.Shyamasunder is the son-in-law of the original plaintiff - Sri.T.R.Ramachandraiah. Based on the sale deed dated 27.05.2002, the defendant became the absolute owner of the property bearing No.84, Sy.No.8, Katha No.887, situated at Soundarya Layout, Near Meenakshi Layout, Sededahalli, Nagasandra Post, Chikkabanavara Group Panchayath, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet, totally measuring 1200 square feet. The defendant acquired the Schedule-A property with the assistance of the plaintiff and further put up construction measuring 30 X 22 on the southern portion of the Schedule-A property. The plaintiff and his family members were residing along with the defendant in the said house till the death of Smt.Venkatalakshmamma. As things stood thus, the defendant intended to dispose of the remaining portion of the suit Schedule-A property, i.e., the northern portion of the suit Schedule-A property measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 18 feet, referred to as Schedule-B property. The defendant wanted to sell the same to fulfill his family needs and to discharge the loan availed from HDFC Bank. The plaintiff expressed his intention to purchase the same, and the defendant offered to sell the Schedule-B property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, and the plaintiff accepted the same. In pursuance of the offer and acceptance, the defendant executed an agreement for sale dated 22.04.2004 in favor of the plaintiff, to which the wife of the defendant is also a consenting witness. The plaintiff had paid an advance amount of Rs.60,000/- being a part of the sale consideration on the date of the agreement. The plaintiff has also put up a small house in the Schedule-B property for his personal use. The plaintiff had paid an advance amount of Rs.60,000/- being a part of the sale consideration on the date of the agreement. The plaintiff has also put up a small house in the Schedule-B property for his personal use. As per the terms of the agreement, the defendant had agreed to receive the balance sale consideration only after the defendant discharges the entire loan availed by him from HDFC Bank, and subsequently, the defendant would execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff. It is stated that as of the date of the agreement, the defendant had put the plaintiff in possession of the Schedule-B property. The defendant requested the plaintiff on 01.11.2004 for payment of Rs.30,000/- out of the balance sale consideration, citing an urgent financial crisis. The plaintiff accordingly paid the defendant by cash a sum of Rs.30,000/-, which was duly acknowledged by executing an endorsement on the aforesaid agreement to sell by both the defendant and his wife. At the time of receipt of the said amount, the defendant had pleaded his difficulty and further assured that he would discharge the HDFC loan at the earliest and execute the sale deed. The defendant and his wife once again approached the plaintiff and demanded the payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/-, as the same was required to be paid towards the loan borrowed from HDFC Bank. The plaintiff believing the defendant and his wife and to secure the registered sale deed has paid the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant on 13.07.2007 by way of cash after withdrawing a sum of Rs.35,000/- from his son's savings Bank Account vide A/c No.1928 in Srinagar Credit Co- operative Society Ltd., Bangalore. Hence, the plaintiff has paid the entire sale consideration towards the purchase of the scheduled property. The defendant acknowledged the receipt of the entire sale consideration and promised that immediately he would discharge the HDFC loan and would execute the Sale Deed. However, in a close relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, an endorsement was not made for the receipt of Rs.10,000/- on the agreement for sale. The plaintiff requested the defendant to execute the sale deed. However, the same was postponed on one or the other pretext. However, in a close relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, an endorsement was not made for the receipt of Rs.10,000/- on the agreement for sale. The plaintiff requested the defendant to execute the sale deed. However, the same was postponed on one or the other pretext. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice on 22.12.2008 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed, to which the defendant replied admitting the execution of the agreement. However, he did not come forward and execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to take shelter under the Court of law and filed a suit seeking the relief of Specific Performance. After service of the summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed a written statement, and he denied the execution of the agreement of sale and also the receipt of the amount. He specifically contended that the suit schedule property worth more than Rs.2,000/- per sq. ft. and it was the only property earned by him. Among other grounds, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and three witnesses as PW2 to 4, and documents were exhibited. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and no documents were exhibited. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 02.02.2017 decreed the suit and directed the defendant to execute the sale deed in favor of plaintiff in respect of the Schedule-B property in terms of agreement of sale dated 22.04.2004 by accepting the balance consideration amount of Rs.10,000/- and defendant was also directed to handover the vacant possession of the Schedule-B property to the plaintiff, on failure, the defendant to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deed executed through the process of the Court. Under these circumstances, the defendant has filed the captioned appeal under Section 96 of CPC. 5. Counsel Sri.Abdul Khadar, for the appellant submits that the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court are contrary to law and opposed to the documentary evidence on record. Next, he submits that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the agreement for sale. However, he has failed to do so by producing any cogent or acceptable evidence. Next, he submits that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the agreement for sale. However, he has failed to do so by producing any cogent or acceptable evidence. A further submission is made that the findings and the observations of the Trial Court, including the statement made by the defendant during cross-examination regarding his signature, are also without any basis, as the burden of proving the case rests on the plaintiff. Counsel vehemently contended that there is a total non-consideration of the case put forth by the defendant under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, and the Trial Court has not properly exercised the discretionary powers. Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is untenable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. Counsel, therefore, submits that the appeal may be allowed. 6. Counsel Sri.G.V.Shashikumar, for the respondent, justified the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. He submits that the appellant has not made any grounds to interfere with the Judgment of the Trial Court. Counsel, therefore, submits that the appeal may be dismissed. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers and also the record with care. 7. The short point that would arise for consideration is whether the Judgment of the Trial Court requires interference. 8. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around the grant of relief of specific performance. In this case, the plaintiffs sued to enforce the specific performance of a Contract to execute a conveyance in respect of the suit schedule-B property. In this appeal, the main contention of the defendant is about the specific denial of the execution of the agreement for sale and the endorsement made on the 1 st November, 2004. Counsel Sri.Abdul Khadar., in presenting his argument, vehemently contends that the defendant disputed the signature over the agreement for sale and also on the endorsement. He argued by saying that the second report of the handwriting expert is clear in this regard. By way of reply to this contention, counsel Sri.G.V.Shashikumar., strenuously urged that the defendant in the reply notice and cross-examination has admitted the execution of the agreement for sale. He argued by saying that the second report of the handwriting expert is clear in this regard. By way of reply to this contention, counsel Sri.G.V.Shashikumar., strenuously urged that the defendant in the reply notice and cross-examination has admitted the execution of the agreement for sale. As far as the handwriting expert’s opinion about the signatures, he argued by saying that the Trial Court has rightly concluded that the report is beyond the reference. The contention about the denial of the execution of the agreement for sale and the handwriting expert’s opinion is noted with utmost care. Suffice it to note that the plaintiff was constrained to apply for Order 26 Rule 10(A) of CPC in I.A.No.8 on 06.01.2015 because of the inconsistent stand by the defendant. The Senior Scientific Officer, Truth Labs, communicated to the Court on 12.11.2015 and requested the Court to make arrangements for the procurement of admittedly genuine signatures. However, a report/ opinion dated 21.12.2015 was forwarded to the Court on 22.12.2015. In compliance with the requirement of hand handwriting expert, the plaintiff filed a memo on 27.01.2016 and requested the Court to send the written statement, vakalath, evidence affidavit filed by the defendant. The defendant filed objections to the memo on 04.02.2016. The Trial Court vide order dated 15.02.2016 ordered to send the documents as prayed in the memo. The Trial Court vide letter dated 29.02.2016 forwarded the documents as sought by the handwriting expert and requested for comparison of admitted signatures with the disputed signatures of the defendant and his wife on the written statement, vakalath and Chief affidavit of the defendant (DW1) and submit a report. Accordingly, the handwriting expert submitted a second report on 14.04.2016 to the Trial Court. Ex.P.1 is the Agreement for sale dated 22.04.2004. Defendant's signature was marked as Ex.P.1(a), Ex.P.1(g). Similarly, the signature of the defendant's wife, Pushpalatha, was marked as Ex.P.1(e) and Ex.P.1(j). The Trial Court sent Ex.P.1 to the handwriting expert. In the report dated 21.12.2015, the handwriting expert opined that the red enclosed signatures marked 'a' and 'g' are written by the same person and the red enclosed signatures marked 'e' and 'j' are written by the same person. The Trial Court sent Ex.P.1 to the handwriting expert. In the report dated 21.12.2015, the handwriting expert opined that the red enclosed signatures marked 'a' and 'g' are written by the same person and the red enclosed signatures marked 'e' and 'j' are written by the same person. However, after sending other documents, the handwriting expert submitted a report dated 14.04.2016, and opined that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked 'S1 to S19' did not write the red enclosed signatures marked 'Q1 to Q4'. A good deal of argument is canvassed about the admitted and disputed signatures, and also about the report/ opinion of the Truth Labs. A perusal of the letter addressed by the Court to the Commissioner dated 29.02.2016 depicts that a reference was made to the handwriting expert to compare the admitted signatures with the disputed signatures of the defendant and his wife in written statement, vakalath and Chief affidavit of defendant (DW1) showing his signatures and submit a report. The Commissioner gave the report stating that the defendant did not sign the agreement for sale as if he were the Presiding Officer of a Civil Court. In my view, the conclusion of the Trial Court that the handwriting expert acted beyond the scope of the reference is just and proper. As already noted above, plaintiff sued to enforce the specific performance of a Contract to execute a conveyance in respect of the Schedule-B suit property. The Trial Court framed as many as seven issues, and the issues regarding the execution of the agreement for sale and readiness and willingness were answered in favour of the plaintiff. In cross- examination, there is a clear admission by DW1 regarding the issuance of the reply notice, its contents, and his signatures on the agreement for sale on all pages. He also admits that he knows Mr.Veerachar, one of the witnesses to the endorsement dated November 1, 2004. The circumstances would justify the interference by a Court to order for specific performance. The Trial Court extenso, referred to the material on record and rightly concluded that the plaintiff's suit must be decreed. I find no grounds to interfere with the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be rejected. 9. The Trial Court extenso, referred to the material on record and rightly concluded that the plaintiff's suit must be decreed. I find no grounds to interfere with the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be rejected. 9. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is rejected Because of rejection of the appeal, the interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of and the interim order if any stands discharged.