SUKHDEO YADAV Vs. KHYMAN YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are defendants in a suit, bearing Title Suit No. 25 of 1998, filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for confirmation of title and possession over the suit land and further for declaration of registered sale deed, dtd. 7/1/1983, as null and void.

(2.) On 27/7/2009, the respondents-plaintiffs filed a petition for verification of the thumb impression on the sale deed, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 29/7/2009, with direction to the defendant, namely, Sukhdeo Yadav, to put his thumb impression before the Sheristedar in presence of both the parties. Again, on 26/6/2014, the learned Trial Court directed the defendant, Sukhdeo Yadav, for giving his thumb impression before the Sheristedar, with further direction to send it to the Bureau of Crime and Research Department, Patna, for verification of the thumb impression by Finger Print Bureau. The Sheristedar complied the order and submitted his report and on the basis of the report submitted by the Sheristedar, the learned Trial Court, vide order, dtd. 18/4/2017, sent the specimen thumb impression of defendant Sukhdeo Yadav to the Finger Print Bureau, Patna, for comparison/verification. The report of the Finger Print Bureau, Patna, was received by the learned Trial Court, on 23/3/2018. At this juncture, the respondents-plaintiffs filed a petition that report of the Finger Print Bureau, Patna, be exhibited as documentary evidence.

(3.) A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners-defendants to the petition filed by the plaintiffs-respondents, contending therein that the report suffers from the infirmity and the same is doubtful inasmuch as the envelope in which the report was sent, was not opened in the open court and none of the parties made any request to open the said report. Further submission of the petitioners-defendants is that the thumb impression was not taken before the Court; rather, it was taken before the Sheristedar, which is not lawful. The report does not mention anything about the full characteristics of the thumb and only refers the short ridge and re-joining. The Expert did not calculate all the medo ridge and further the report did not mention about the age of the medo and the pattern thereof.