MUKESH KUMAR Vs. SANTOSH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 27.8.2013 passed by District Judge, Sikar, whereby he has rejected an application filed by the petitioner for examination of the thumb impression contained in an alleged Will by a fingerprint expert.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that an application for getting letter of administration under Section 278 read with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. It has been alleged in the application that the executor of the Will, namely Banwari Lal had died on 20.6.2006. Banwari Lal executed a Will on 19.6.2006 by which he made his 1/6th share in favour of the respondent-applicants for khasra Nos.272, 273, 274, 275 and 278 admeasuring 12.47 hectare. A joint reply to the application was filed by the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 13, stating therein that the Will is a forged one, and that the thumb impression on the Will was not genuine. Subsequently, an application for examining the Will from a fingerprint expert was filed by the petitioner. Reply to the said application was also filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, with the prayer for rejection of the same. By order dated 27.8.2013, the learned Judge rejected the application. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that even if the FSL has given its report dated 14.5.2010, and has claimed that the admitted thumb print of Banwari Lal cannot possibly be compared with the alleged thumb print in the Will, and even if the report is inconclusive, even then the learned Judge ought to have sent the Will to a fingerprint expert. For, it is the case of the petitioner that the Will is a forged one, and that the thumb print of Banwari Lal in the Will do not match with his known thumb print.