A. NARAYANA Vs. GULABI V. RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 27.07.1985 passed by the Principal Munsiff at Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada, in O.S.No.143/1980 and the concurring Judgment and Decree dated 03.12.2005 passed by the Second Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mangalore, in R.A.No.68/1985. The Courts below directed the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.

(2.) For the sake of easy understanding, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, while the respondents are the legal representatives of the plaintiff before the Trial Court.

(3.) Before the facts of the case are considered, it is relevant to note that the suit in O.S.No.143/1980 was decreed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the Judgment and Decree dated 27.07.1985 which was challenged in R.A.No.68/1985. The First Appellate Court in terms of the Judgment and Decree dated 26.11.1990 allowed the appeal. Later, the Judgment and Decree dated 26.11.1990 in R.A.No.68/1985 was challenged by the legal representatives of the plaintiff before this Court in R.S.A.No.555/1991 which was allowed in terms of the Judgment and Decree dated 03.06.1998 and the appeal was remitted to the First Appellate Court with a direction to secure the opinion of a handwriting expert as to whether the signatures found on Ex-P19 belonged to the defendant or not. This Court specifically held "I would like to make one thing clear if Ex-P19 is found to contain the signature of the defendant, the plaintiff must succeed and if it does not contain the signature of the defendant, then the defendant must succeed". The First Appellate Court thereafter secured a report from a handwriting expert who opined that Ex-P19 contained the signatures of the defendant. The First Appellate Court, thus dismissed the Appeal of the defendant in terms of the Judgment and Decree dated 27/01/2003. The defendant challenged the Judgment and Decree dated 27/01/2003 before this Court in R.S.A. No.432/2003 contending that the objections filed by him to the report of the hand writing expert was not considered. This Court noticed that the objections filed by the defendant was indeed not considered and thus allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the First Appellate Court to hear the defendant on the objections filed by him and to secure the expert before the Court for his evidence. The First Appellate Court secured the presence of the expert and examined him as PW.1 and based on the evidence available on record, dismissed the first appeal in terms of the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 03.12.2005. The defendant has filed this Regular Second Appeal assailing the Judgments and Decree of the Courts below decreeing the suit for ejectment of the defendant from the suit property.