The court must rely on expert evidence for handwriting analysis, and cannot substitute its own findings without valid reasons, especially when expert opinions are available.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

1. Though matter is listed for admission by consent of learned Advocates appearing for both the parties, heard the arguments at admission stage itself substantially and taken up for final disposal.

2. This regular second appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2011 passed in R.A. No. 52/2005 by II Addl. District Judge, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’) which reversed the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2005 passed in O.S. No. 54/1995 by the Addl. Civil Jude (Sr. Dn.) Hospet (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’).

3. The ranks of the parties is as stated before the trial Court for easy reference and convenience.

PLAINT:

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property within the jurisdiction of Amaravathi Town Municipality, Amaravathi, as having been purchased through the Registered Sale Deed dated 30.04.1986 for Rs.24,000/- from Y.D. Hulukunta Rao, Tirumala Rao and Y.D. Raghunanda Rao, GPA holder. After purchasing the same, the name of the plaintiff was entered in all the revenue records and the plaintiff is paying tax regularly. The plaintiff has taken the possession of the suit property and constructed up to foundation level, but the plaintiff could not construct the building due to his financial difficulties. Therefore, it has remained till the foundation level.

5. The first defendant’s parents are close friends of plaintiff’s family and defendant No. 1 used to visit plaintiff’s house and earned goodwill. Many a time, plaintiff and first defendant used to discuss family matters also. When this being the fact, first defendant without having no right, title or interest on the suit property has alienated portion of the schedule mentioned property that is area measuring 40 x 60 feet out of total area 60 x 60 feet in favour of defendant No. 2. It is stated that defendant No. 1 is not the owner and not having title over the suit property, but sold to defendant No. 2 through the Registered Sale Deed dated 02.02.1992. Therefore, it is pleaded that the said sale deed dated 02.02.1992 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and no title passes through it to defendant No. 2. Further once again, defendant No. 1 has sold remaining portion of schedule property measuring 20 x 60 feet to defendant No. 2 through the Registered Sale Deed dated 02.03.1992. Therefore, defendant No. 1 has executed two sale deeds in favour of second defendant on different dates.

6. It is pleaded that the plaintiff after learning that first defendant had created fraudulent power of attorney as if executed by the plaintiff and by virtue of the said power of attorney, first defendant had sold the suit schedule property above stated in favour of defendant No. 2. But in fact, the plaintiff has not executed any power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1. Therefore, in this way, defendant No. 1 has cheated the plaintiff by making forged power of attorney.

7. It is further pleaded that second defendant, in turn, alienated the suit property in favour of defendant No. 3 on 24.08.1992, though second defendant had no right, title or interest in the said property. Therefore, the sale deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 as above stated are null and void. Therefore, it is pleaded that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are liable to handover the vacant possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff.

8. Further it is pleaded that third defendant has started construction work on the suit property without taking any licence or permission from the competent authority. Therefore, the construction put up by defendant No. 3 on the suit property by making use of construction upto foundation level by the plaintiff is illegal.

9. Therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that first defendant had no title, interest and not owner of the property, but by creating fraudulent power of attorney showing a