AHMAD SAEED KHAN Vs. NIHAL FATIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs second appeal. The appellant brought a suit under Sec. 77 (1) of the Registration Act. The basis of the suit being a sale deed dated 1st Jan., 1975, alleged to have been executed by Smt. Nihal Fatima, the defendant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the impugned document). The trial court decreed the suit. In appeal the decree was reversed and that is why the appellant is before this court.

(2.) In proceedings under Sec. 77 (1) of Registration Act the sole concern of court is the genuineness of the document sought to be registered. Therefore, the question to be decided by the two courts below was whether the impugned document was genuine. The lower appellate court compared the signatures alleged to have been appended by Nihal Fatima on the impugned document with the admitted signature of the lady and found that the signatures differed. That apart, the lady had appended her signature of the written statement, on the Vakalatnama that she had executed as well as on the deposition made by her in the trial court. I have examined the signatures appended by the lady on her deposition. I have also examined specimen signature taken by the court. From an ocular examination it is apparent that the signatures taken as specimen signatures tally with the signature appended by the lady upon her statement recorded in the trial court. I am satisfied that the specimen signatures do not tally with the signature on the impugned document. An expert too was examined on behalf of the defendant. He too pointed out that the signature of the lady on the impugned document did not tally with the admitted signature. I have gone through the statement of the expert and in my opinion nothing could be elicited from in cross-examination to shake his testimony. The finding recorded by the lower appellate court that the signatures do not tally is apparently a finding of fact. No tangible argument was advanced before me to challenge the correctness of that finding much less to demonstrate the perversity of that finding. This is enough to dispose of this appeal.

(3.) Now at this stage I may advert to another aspect of the case. The case set up by the plaintiff appellant was that before execution of the document a sum of Rs. 18,500.00 had been paid to the executant. In support of his case one Habibullah had been examined by the appellant this Habibullah had also made a deposition before the Deputy Registrar. This he had stated that before the execution of the document Nihal Fatima had admitted the receipt of the consideration of Rs. 18,500.00. However, before the trial court this witness came out with a different story. He clearly deposed that a consideration of Rs. 18,500.00 had been paid to Nihal Fatima in his presence. In view of the two opposite versions, the lower appellate court was perfectly justified in discarding the testimony of this witness. Therefore, no illegality can be attached to the finding of the lower appellate court that no money passed to Nihal Fatima.