KASHMIRI LAL AND OTHERS Vs. GURNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gurnam Singh is alleged to have taken a Kothri situate in village Makhu, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepore, from Kashmiri Lal on a monthly rent of Rs. 4/- vide rent note dated 13.4.1969. On 7.9.1972, a notice to vacate under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was served on the tenant and the suit for ejectment was filed on 7.3.1973. In the written statement the tenant denied the allegation of tenancy and pleaded that he entered into possession of the Kothri in 1947 after partition; that it was evacuee property and he became owner thereof by adverse possession. The trial Court decreed the suit after recording findings that the rent note was proved by Dharampal (PW-1) who was one of the attesting witnesses; from the report of the Government Finger Print Bureau and from the statement of Amar Nath (PW-4), who was instrumental in getting the Kothri leased out to the defendant; that the relationship of the landlord and tenant was proved and that the defendant had failed to prove the adverse possession. On defendant's appeal, the lower Appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. This is second appeal by the plaintiffs in the Court.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the view that the lower Appellate Court committed error of law in reversing the well considered judgment and decree of the trial Court. To prove the thumb impression of the defendant on rent note Exhibit P-1, the plaintiffs got the thumb impression referred to the Government Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur and it was reported that it tallied with the thumb impression of the defendant. The report is at page 119 of the record. To prove the report, interrogatories were got issued by the plaintiffs. The interrogatories are at page 117 of the record. To the interrogatories prepared by the plaintiffs, the defendant added the question to be put in cross-examination in the interrogatories. That question was as follows :-

(3.) Sub Judge, Phillaur recorded the statement of Ved Kumar Bhatia, Inspector of Police, Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, on oath on the basis of interrogatories. The statement of the witness regarding the first three interrogatories proposed by the plaintiffs was recorded. To the point suggested in the cross-examination, the answer was 'No'. That means that two impressions of two different persons cannot be similar. The lower Appellate Court rejected the thumb impression report and the statement of the aforesaid witness recorded on interrogatories on the reasoning that the question suggested by the defendant in cross-examination was not put to the witness. Probably, the answer 'No' was read by the lower Appellate Court to mean that the question suggested by the defendant in cross-examination was not put to the witness. This is patently wrong and goes against the record. The science of Finger Prints has been held to be a perfect science because two thumb impressions have never been found to have tallied and that is why the answer was given by the witness that two thumb impressions can never tally and that was answered by the word 'No'. Therefore, the basis of the lower Appellate Court in rejecting the report of comparison of the thumb impressions and the statement of the witness is clearly illegal. Once the report and the statement of the aforesaid witness are taken into consideration along with the statement of PW-1 are taken into consideration along with the statement of PW-1, who is the attesting witness, and that of PW-4, no doubt is left that the defendant took the premises on rent from the plaintiffs vide rent note Exhibit P-1 dated 13.4.1969 at the rate of Rs. 4/- per month.