IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD (23RD) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.3643 of 2008 Between: Zainab Bee & another … Petitioners And: Syed Khundmir & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3643 of 2008 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.07.2008 in EA No.40 of 2008 in EA No.83 of 2007 in EP No.5 of 2005 in OS No.938 of 2000 on the file of the 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, to send the disputed thumb impressions on Ex.A.3 to Finger Prints Expert, FSL for the purpose of comparison and opinion, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners are the third party claimants. According to them, EP schedule property bearing H.No.17-1-273/3 situated at M.B. Hut, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad, was owned by the deceased Mohammed Abdullah Khan. The first petitioner is the wife and 2nd petitioner is the son of the deceased Mohd. Abdullah Khan. The petitioners deny that they sold the property in favour of JDr-R.17 herein by name Mohd.Obaidullah Khan in the year 1993. The petitioners alleged that the DHRs-R.1 to R.16 fabricated the alleged sale deed in favour of R.17 in collusion with R.17. The petitioners further alleged that the said sale deed marked as Ex.A.3 is forged and fabricated document. The petitioners therefore filed application for sending the said document Ex.A.3 to the Finger Print Expert. 4. The respondents/decree-holders opposed the application on the ground that the first claimant as PW.1 in the cross-examination categorically admitted her thumb impression on Ex.A.3 and therefore, there is no need to send the document to the expert and the present application is only to drag on the proceedings. 5. As seen from the deposition of first petitioner-claimant, who is examined as PW.1, she has categorically admitted as follows: “I can recognize my thumb impression. The thumb impression shown on Ex.A.3 registered sale deed dated 07.12.1993 is that of mine. It is Ex.B.1.” 6. From the above admission, it can be seen that it was specifically asked whether she can identify her thumb impression, and she answered the same in the affirmative and thereafter when the document was shown, she identified her thumb impression on Ex.A.3 as belonging to her. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that it is difficult for any one to identify thumb impression, like identifying the signature. In the present case, the first petitioner-PW.1 categorically admitted and identified her thumb impression on Ex.A.3 with reference to the transaction contained therein. It may be difficult for any one to identify a thumb impression when the same is shown in isolation, but it is quite possible to identify the thumb impression in association with transaction pertaining to which the thumb impression was affixed. The evidence of hand-writing expert or finger print expert is only an opinion evidence, which cannot over-ride the direct evidence of the person concerned nor does it obliterate the admission made by the witness. The value of the admission made by a witness in the cross- examination, that too on a material fact, cannot be sought to be derogated by opinion evidence. 8. In the light of categorical admission of PW.1 in the evidence regarding the genuineness of the transaction in respect of which she affixed the thumb impression, the question of sending the document to a finger print expert for comparison and opinion, does not arise. The petition filed by the petitioners subsequent to recording of PW.1’s evidence is obviously a vain attempt to get over the crucial admission made by the first petitioner-PW.1 on a material fact in the course of cross-examination. The impugned order dismissing the application does not therefore call for any interference by this Court, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 23.02.2011 bss