Summary
The Court restored a decree for specific performance after finding that the High Court had wrongly preferred a handwriting expert’s opinion over reliable evidence of execution. The attestors’ testimony, an earnest-money receipt and the vendor’s brother’s identification of his signature established the agreement’s genuineness. The purchaser’s absence of signature did not invalidate this transaction, and his readiness and willingness were pleaded and proved.
Issues
- How handwriting expert opinion should be weighed against substantive evidence of execution and identification by a familiar witness.
- Whether the purchaser’s unsigned agreement and alleged absence of a demand defeated specific performance on these facts.
Held
- Handwriting opinion requires cautious evaluation. Corroboration is a rule of prudence rather than an inflexible legal requirement; such opinion should rarely override reliable substantive evidence. The High Court rejected the plaintiff and attestors on assumptions inconsistent with the record. (¶ 5–10)
- The vendor’s brother was sufficiently acquainted with his handwriting to give relevant identification evidence. Its weight depended on demonstrated familiarity, frequency and recency of observation; here it was reinforced by attestors and an unrefuted earnest-money receipt. (¶ 12–15)
- The expert’s comparison relied predominantly on signatures made after institution of the suit, casting serious doubt on the report. The Court found execution proved on the other evidence, without needing to rely on its own comparison. (¶ 15–16)
- The absence of the purchaser’s signature did not invalidate this agreement, signed by the vendor and followed by a receipt forming part of the same transaction. The pleadings and evidence also established demands for performance, available funds, and readiness and willingness. (¶¶ 12, 17–18)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside and the Trial Court’s judgment and decree for specific performance restored.