1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4370 OF 2008. Yeshodhabai W/o Baliram Sagar ... Petitioner. Versus Madhav Dhondiba Sagar ... Respondent. ... Mr.Boiwar, advocate holding for Mr.M.A.Kandharkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.N.Chamle, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 19.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner filed suit bearing (RCS No.225/2002) for perpetual injunction. She asserted that the suit land comprising of 2 (two) hectares 18 (eighteen) Ares out of Gat No.178 was 2 owned by her husband and after his death she became owner thereof. She further alleged that the defendant is her brother-in-law and attempted to dispossess her from the suit land. According to her, there took place partition between her husband and the defendant/respondent after they jointly purchased the land in question. She produced a partition deed dated 3.7.1981 and examined herself and attesting witness of the partition deed. The partition deed was admitted in evidence as Exh.91. During cross-examination the defendant/respondent denied his signature on the partition deed. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff filed application (Exh.91) seeking expert's opinion to verify the fact situation about signature of the defendant. The trial Court held that there is direct evidence available and sending of the document to the expert was not necessary. The suit is for injunction simpliciter. Needless to say, the only material question is as to whether the petitioner/plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit land which is referable to her rights. In such a suit, sending of the documents to 3 handwriting expert only because the signature is denied by the defendant/respondent is not called for. The impugned order does not suffer from arbitrariness and perversity. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp437008