1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 835 OF 2001 Asma A. Bamboat & anr.........Appellants versus M/s. E. Merk (India) Ltd. & ors........ Respondents. Mr. Vijay Pandey i/b U.M. Zhaveri adv. for the Appellants Mr. N. G. Bhatt adv. for the respondents CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 5th JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. The subject matter of this appeal are 150 shares of defendant no.1 company, the ownership of which is claimed by the appellant. The defendant nos.2 and 3 had lodged the shares for transfer with the defendant no.1 company. The plaintiff denied to have transferred the said shares in favour of anyone and approached the court with the case that the shares were misplaced or lost and hence relief of declaration and injunction was sought. 2. The defendant resisted the claim and both the plaintiff and the defendants examined hand-writing experts as their witnesses. The hand writing expert examined by the plaintiff 2 deposed in favour of the plaintiff whereas the hand writing expert examined by the defendants deposed in favour of the defendants and opined that the signature on the transfer form is that of the plaintiff. The trial court has chosen to rely upon the evidence of hand writing expert examined by the defendants by pointing out some crucial descripencies in the report submitted by the hand writing expert examined by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's witness had given the report and opinion based on examination of zerox copies and not the original signature. Per contra the opinion given by the hand writing expert examined by the defendants was based on comparison of original disputed and admitted signatures. In the totality of the facts and circumstances the trial court has found the case of the defendant to be more reliable and thus concluded that the shares lodged by the defendant nos. 2 and 3 with the defendant no.1 company was on the basis of transfer form signed by the plaintiff. 3. Perused the judgment of the trial court. The same does not call for any interference as a very possible view of the matter has been taken. In the result, there being no merit, the appeal is dismissed summarily. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)