1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 705 OF 2009 Deoram S/o Bhagwnata Gunajl ...Appellant VERSUS Satyabhamabai W/o Yadav Jondhale, Dead through her L.Rs. and others ...Respondents ------------------------------------------ Mr. S.K.Shinde, Advocate for appellant. Mr. R.D.Bhalekar, Advocate for respondent. ----------------------------------------- (CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J ) DATE : 6th October,2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff, who failed to secure the relief from the Courts below. 3. The plaintiff/appellant filed the suit against the defendant claiming that the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.331 of 1981 is not binding on him and for cancellation of the same. According to him, the suit summons were not served on him before passing the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 331 of 1981 and by playing fraud the 2 decree has been secured by the defendants. The plaintiff was adopted by the parents of defendants. The defendants in earlier litigation sought relief in respect of partition of ancestral property. 2. In order to substantiate respective contentions the parties led evidence. After considering the evidence placed on record, the trial Court came to conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his claim and dismissed the suit. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was subjected to challenge in appeal, at the instance of appellant, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 858 of 2000, which came to be dismissed by the Additional District Judge Sangamner, on 04.03.2002. It transpires, on perusal of the judgment, that the summons in Regular Civil Suit No.331 of 1981 were duly served on the plaintiff through Bailiff of the Court. The Bailiff has deposed before the court in respect of service of summons on plaintiff in earlier suit. The Assistant Superintendent of the Court has also reported in respect of the service of summons on the plaintiff, who was arrayed as defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 331 of 1981. The courts below compared the signatures appearing on the summons as well as admitted signatures of the plaintiff appearing on Vakalatnama and the plaint and it was found that the signatures appearing on all the 3 documents appear to be similar. The appellant/Original plaintiff has placed reliance on evidence of Handwriting Expert, who has deposed that signature appearing on summons in earlier suit appear to be dis-similar to the admitted signature. However, the Expert could not depose in respect of reasons for reaching such conclusion. The evidence of the Expert was found to be not satisfactory by the Courts below. Even otherwise, the evidence of the Expert is in the nature of opinion and is not conclusive. The reasons recorded by the Courts below, in support of the decision rendered are quite proper and logical. In the circumstances, therefore, the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below need not be interfered with while exercising powers under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. ( R.M.BORDE, J. ) MTK/SA.705.09 4