Appellate court grants plaintiff appeal, orders specific performance, conveyance, and costs.

The appellate court found in favor of the plaintiff, allowing the appeal, setting aside the previous judgment, and decreeing the suit for specific performance. The plaintiff was directed to pay Rs. 50/- within 45 days, and the defendant was ordered to execute and register the conveyance. If the defendant defaulted, the trial court was authorized to execute the conveyance on the defendant's behalf. The plaintiff was also awarded costs throughout.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Existence of an agreement for specific performance.
2. Consideration for the contract.
3. Validity and enforceability of the contract.
4. Mutuality of obligations.
5. Admissibility of evidence and comparison of signatures.
6. Discretion in granting specific performance.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Existence of an Agreement for Specific Performance:
The plaintiff alleged an oral agreement with the defendant, wherein the defendant agreed to convey the leasehold interest back to the plaintiff upon payment of Rs. 50/- within six years. The trial court believed the plaintiff's story and found that the defendant had indeed executed the document (Ex. 1) confirming this agreement. The appellate court also upheld the genuineness of the document, rejecting the defendant's request for a remand to examine a handwriting expert.

2. Consideration for the Contract:
The defense argued that there was no consideration for the alleged contract, making it invalid. However, the trial court noted that the lease was granted by the plaintiff and his brothers to the defendant on the same day the ekrarnama was executed, indicating that the lease itself was the consideration for the defendant's promise to convey the leasehold back to the plaintiff. The court concluded that this constituted a valid consideration under Section 2(d) of the Contract Act.

3. Validity and Enforceability of the Contract:
The appellate court initially dismissed the plaintiff's suit, agreeing with the defense that there was no valid contract due to lack of consideration and mutuality. However, upon further review, it was determined that the promise to convey the leasehold was supported by the consideration of granting the lease, making the contract valid and enforceable.

4. Mutuality of Obligations:
The defense contended that the contract lacked mutuality as there was no reciprocal promise by the plaintiff to pay the Rs. 50/-. The court clarified that mutuality of obligations is not essential for consideration. The promise by the defendant to convey the leasehold was supported by the act of granting the lease by the plaintiff and his brothers, making the contract binding and enforceable.

5. Admissibility of Evidence and Comparison of Signatures:
The appellate court's decision to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature of the defendant was challenged. The court held that judges are entitled to use their own observations to assess the genuineness of signatures, provided there is supporting evidence. The appellate court's rejection of the defendant's belated request for additional evidence was deemed appropriate.

6. Discretion in Granting Specific Performance:
The defense argued that specific performance should not be granted due to the lack of mutuality in the contract. However, the court noted that once the condition (payment of Rs. 50/-) was fulfilled by the plaintiff, the contract became absolute and mutual, allowing for specific performance. The court found no reason to deny the plaintiff this relief.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous judgment, and decreed the suit for specific performance. The plaintiff was directed to pay or deposit Rs. 50/- within 45 days, and the defendant was ordered to execute and register the conveyance. In case of default by the defendant, the trial court was authorized to execute the conveyance on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff was awarded costs throughout.

---