KHIRESH CHANDRA DAS Vs. ADARINI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.91 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Silchar, in Title Appeal No. 12/89 setting side judgment and decree dated 28.1.89 passed by learned Munsiff, Silchar, in TS No. 183 of 1981.

(2.) The case, in short, is that respondent/ plaintiff instituted T.S. No. 182/89 for a declaration that 3 sale deeds, particulars of which were stated in the plaint, be were forged, fabricated and therefore to cancel the same and to give decree against the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that the present appellants and her husband were brothers and were joint owners of the suit property in question. Her husband died without leaving any issue. After the death of her husband, her in laws evicted her from the said joint property and forged and fabricated certain registered sale deeds. By the said sale deeds share of the husband of the plaintiff in such property, which she had inherited as wife of the deceased husband, was shown to have been transferred to the appellants for a consideration of certain amount of money as mentioned therein. The disputed documents (sale deeds) and some speciman thumb impressions of the plaintiff were sent to the finger print expert of the Forensic Laboratory for comparison, examination and report. Finger print expert after comparing the disputed documents with the speciman thumb impression of the plaintiff had opined that the thumb impressions on the disputed documents were not thumb impressions of the plaintiff.

(3.) The suit, however, was dismissed by the learned trial Court, as the trial Court was of the view that speciman thumb impression of the plaintiff was smudgy and therefore was unfit for scientific comparison with the thumb impression on the disputed documents. On this finding, learned trial Court disbelieved the evidence of the finger print expert.