RSA No.3081 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.8564-C of 2007 & RSA No.3081 of 2007 Decided on : 26.10.2009 Sowaran Singh & others ... Appellants versus Nishan Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J.S.Verka, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 8. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the ld. Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the Trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent challenging the sale deed executed by one Jaibo. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the finding of the ld. Lower Appellate Court that sale deed Ex.PJ is forged and fabricated given on the sole basis of report of finger print expert without even discussing the evidence given by expert, amounts to accepting the ipse-dixit of the expert and delegation of its function by the ld. Lower RSA No.3081 of 2007 -2- Appellate Court and therefore, cannot be sustained? ii)Whether in view of statement of expert PW-2 especially the answer in the cross-examination and the report Ex.P-3 giving opinion without any proper scientific details and demonstration marking required for comparison of thumb impressions, the expert has proved himself to be witness whose opinion cannot be relied upon and findings to the contrary recorded by ld. Lower Appellate Court based on misreading and mis-appreciation of relevant facts on record of the case and on wrong application of law cannot be sustained? iii) Whether uncorroborated testimony of expert could be preferred to the direct evidence, clear and cogent and supported by circumstantial evidence with respect to due execution of sale deed Ex.PJ by plaintiff in favour of defendant Harbans Kaur and findings to the contrary cannot be sustained? iv)Whether findings based on misreading and mis- appreciation of relevant evidence could be sustained? v)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case dismissal of suit against defendant No.3 Wassan Singh would also entail dismissal of suit against other co-sharers, the decree being joint and indivisible? RSA No.3081 of 2007 -3- vi)Whether allegations of fraud and misrepresentation are inconsistent with allegations of forgery and impersonation and finding to the contrary cannot be sustained? vii)Whether suit for possession by a co-sharer can only be decreed for declaration and decree for joint possession cannot be granted? viii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and findings to the contrary recorded by ld. Lower appellate court cannot be sustained being perverse? Questions No.(i) to (iv) are pure questions of fact relating to the validity of the sale deed. Ld. Appellate Court has relied on the examination of the disputed thumb impression and the testimony of the expert who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent. Lower Appellate Court also noticed that the appellant did not produced any expert to testify regarding the disputed thumb impressions. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that while returning a finding against the appellant, the ld. Appellate Court did not at all examine the positive evidence led by the appellant i.e. attesting witnesses Nishan Singh and others. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the cryptic report of an expert cannot obstruct the positive evidence of the appellant. However, it would be profitable to notice that though there can be great uncertainty in RSA No.3081 of 2007 -4- examining hand writing yet the examination of thumb impression is an exact exercise. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings of fact recorded are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence which renders them so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of CPC. Consequently, questions No.(i) to (iv) have to be decided against the appellant. Once it is found that in fact the sale deed was never executed by Jaibo, the peripheral questions No.(v),(vi) & (vii) do not arise. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. October 26, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE