ANOKH SINGH Vs. GURBAX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners' application for getting the thumb impression of Anokh Singh and Jarnail Singh compared on the disputed Will Ex. A/1 was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 14.12.1999.

(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Jarnail Singh had executed a Will on 23.10.1980 in respect of the land situated in village Rokhe in favour of Gurbax Singh, plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred as plaintiff) and the land situated in village Chhajalwadi in favour of his nephews. Jarnail Singh died on 1.2.1981 and mutation regarding inheritance was sanctioned. 13 years after the death of Jarnail Singh, Gurbax Singh, plaintiff instituted a suit for joint possession of land situated in village Chhajalwadi on the basis of the Will dated 15.10.1980 executed by Jarnail Singh in this favour. The suit was contested by the defendant-petitioner (hereinafter referred as petitioner) who denied execution of the Will dated 15.10.1980.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, Will dated 15.10.1980 is forged document. The thumb impression of Jarnail Singh is not on the Will Ex. A/1. In fact, it is the thumb impression of Anokh Singh, who is alleged to be an attesting witness. The petitioner, therefore, moved an application for getting the thumb impression of Anokh Singh compared with that of Jarnail Singh appearing on the Will dated 23.10.1982. The prayer of the petitioner has been declined mainly on the ground that the Document Expert examined by the plaintiff was cross- examined at length by the petitioner and he cannot be allowed to take a contradictory plea that the Will Ex. A/1 does not bear the thumb impression of Jarnail Singh rather these are of Anokh Singh. I am of the view that this fact alone is not sufficient to dis-allow their prayer for examining the Expert. Similarly, the view expressed by the trial Court that the Court is the best judge and can itself compare the thumb impression of Jarnail Singh with the specimen thumb impression taken in the Court by the Handwriting and Finger Expert Shri R.S. Bal, examined by the plaintiff, appears to be devoid of merit. The Court may compare the admitted signatures of a person with the disputed signatures in order to see the similarity/dissidently between the two. The Court by no stretch of reasoning can compare, on its own, the disputed thumb impression with the admitted thumb impression. Similarly, the petitioner cannot be denied the right to examine the Expert simply on the ground of delay. Court is not powerless to grant relief if the ends of justice and equity demand, as has been held in Ankayya v. Subhadrayya, AIR 1932 Madras 223 and Anumulasetti Venkateswara Rao v. Konduri Siraiah, AIR 1978 A.P. 403, railed on in a decision of this Court in Mam Raj v. Smt. Sabiri Devi and others, 2000(1) 124 PLR 517 : 1998(2) RCR(Civil) 636 (P&H).