The suit involves a property dispute among brothers and the wife of one brother, claiming partition of alleged joint family property purchased by their deceased mother Gangawwa via registered sale deed, with defendants relying on a Will bequeathing it to the third defendant. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Plaintiffs alleged the Will is false and fabricated; defendants claimed the property was mother's self-acquired, proved by Will executed in sound disposing state of mind. (!) (!) (!)

Trial court issues included proof of Will's validity, plaintiffs' share entitlement, and adverse possession alternative. (!) (!) (!) (!)

Handwriting expert appointed as commissioner compared thumb impressions on Will (Ex.D-12) and sale deed (Ex.P-2), reporting they do not match (loop vs. whorl pattern). (!) (!) (!) (!)

Trial court rejected commissioner's report for not being marked/expert not examined and time gap (26 years), upheld Will based on scribe and witness evidence; appellate court reversed, accepting report. (!) (!) (!)

Commissioner's report under CPC Order 26 Rule 10(2) is evidence forming part of record without needing to be marked as exhibit or commissioner examined, unless party objects and examines to discredit. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Distinction: Court-appointed commissioner/expert report admissible as evidence without formal proof; party/prosecution expert requires examination, marking, and cross-examination. (!) (!) (!) (!)

Thumb impression science is exact, patterns persist unchanging from birth to death, no two identical even in twins; expert opinion admissible but advisory opinion evidence, not conclusive, requires reasoned report and court scrutiny, preferably corroborated. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

For attested documents like Wills (Indian Succession Act S.63), proof under Evidence Act S.68 requires at least one attesting witness if alive; if dead, prove execution/ signatures under S.67 by handwriting experts or acquainted persons, with presumption of attestation if signatures proved. (!) (!) (!)

Registration/non-denial does not prove Will; scribe/present witness evidence proves testator's state/capacity but not attestation if they do not address it. (!) (!) (!)

Here, attesting witnesses dead, no proof of their signatures/attestation; commissioner's report (unobjected) discredits thumb impression, Will not proved. (!) (!)

Trial court erred in rejecting report and relying on inadequate evidence; appellate court correctly re-appreciated evidence, held Will invalid, decreed plaintiffs' 1/3rd share. (!) (!) (!)

Second appeal substantial questions: Evidentiary value of unmarked/unproved commissioner report; weight of fingerprint evidence; Will proof sans attesting witnesses. (!) (!) (!)

Second appeal dismissed, confirming plaintiffs' partition entitlement. (!) (!)