NACHHATTAR SINGH Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE is defendants appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the 'Code') challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to specific performance of agreement dated 21.3.1990 with possession in respect of agricultural land specified therein. The plea of the defendants-appellants that the agreement to sell has fixed the date of execution of the sale deed as 30.6.1990 and not as 30.6.1992 has been rejected by both the Courts below. The defendants-appellants have alleged that the digit '0' of 1990 was forged by the plaintiff-respondent and changed into 1992 has not been accepted by both the Courts below. The handwriting and documents expert have been examined by both the parties and both have supported their respective parties. Holding that in such like situations the evidence of an expert has very little value the lower appellate Court has placed reliance on the judgment of the Lahore High Court in the case of Sadiqa Begam v. Ata Ullah, AIR 1933 Lahore 885. It has further been held that before proceeding to act on evidence of such an expert it would require corroboration in material particulars either by clear direct evidence or by any other satisfactory evidence. The lower appellate Court has concluded that there is no direct evidence or any such circumstantial evidence which may corroborate either of the two reports. Even otherwise the science of comparison of handwriting concerning the documents is not a definite science as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Kumar Banerjee and others v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 529 and Satya Pal Gopal Dass v. Smt. Panchu Bala Dassi and others, 1985(2) All India Land Laws Reporter 504 (SC). In this situation the learned lower appellate Court has adopted the method of examining the documents with naked eye and has concluded as under :

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the defendants-appellants has again raised the same argument which was raised and rejected by the Courts below. It has been urged by him that the digit '0' in the year 1990 has been forged by interpolating the same and converting into '2' and therefore the sale deed was required to be executed by 30.6.1990 and not by 30.6.1992. To the repeated queries made by the Court as to how he aforementioned arguments would amount to a question of law, learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to give any satisfactory answer.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgments of both the Courts below I am of the considered view that no interference of this Court in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Court below would be warranted. The onus to prove as to whether the digit '0' has been controverted to '2' was heavily on the defendants-appellants which he failed to discharge. The reports of the experts on both sides are contradictory and could not constitute a basis to record finding either way. Therefore the Courts below have decided the issue by examining the document with naked eye and it has been concluded that the digit '2' has figured at many other places which looks to be similar to the disputed digit '2'. It is, therefore, unnecessary to delve into those findings of fact in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code. The appeal is wholly without merit and is thus liable to be dismissed.