Both the trial court and the first appellate court have, after a detailed and considered appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence held that the execution of the agreement by Hari Singh stands proved. They have also held that as respondent no.1 has proved that as he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, there is no circumstance, as would disentitle him to the relief of specific performance. The argument that the agreement to sell was scribed in English, whereas the attesting witnesses have affixed thumb impressions, is irrelevant. The attesting witnesses Gian Singh and Nahar Singh have deposed that before Hari Singh affixed his thumb impression, the agreement was read over and explained to them in Punjabi. The argument that though the agreement was scribed in the court compound but the services of a regular scribe were not taken/used was considered and the explanation that a Punjabi typist was not available, has been accepted by the courts below. It would also be necessary to mention here that the thumb impression of Hari Singh has been proved by the deposition of an expert, which has been accepted by both the courts below. The allegation of fraud remains unsubstantiated. The appellants produced a document expert to prove that the agreement was executed on a blank paper. The expert, in his cross-examination, however, exceeded his brief and deposed that the thumb impression of Hari Singh is also forged. As regards the alleged questions of law, suffice it to say that they are neither questions of law nor substantial. The judgements recorded by the courts below are neither mechanical nor arbitrary. The appellants have failed to advert to any evidence that may have been misread or misconstrued. In addition the argument that the relief of specific performance, being discretionary should
