In Brief
A homebuyer sought specific performance of an agreement to purchase a house, supported by an earnest money receipt and credible attesting witnesses. The seller denied the deal, claiming the agreement's signature was forged (based on an expert handwriting opinion). The trial court believed the witnesses and decreed specific performance. The High Court reversed, relying solely on the expert opinion. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's judgment, holding that expert evidence on handwriting is weak and must not override credible witness testimony. The Court emphasized that the corroborating earnest money receipt and the lay opinion of the seller's own brother (who lived with him for decades) supported the agreement's authenticity. The Court decreed specific performance accordingly.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.