In Brief
A plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to purchase property from the first defendant, who instead sold to a third party. The defendant claimed the agreement was forged. The trial court found it genuine and granted specific performance. The High Court reversed this, relying solely on expert evidence that the document was forged. The Supreme Court held that expert opinion, though helpful, is not substantive and must be evaluated cautiously. Since the defendant himself acknowledged his signature on the payment receipt and other objective evidence supported the agreement's authenticity, the expert's conclusion could not override these facts. The Court restored the trial court's judgment and allowed the appeal for specific performance.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.