D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is defendants Second Appeal.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are that on 2-5-1975 the plaintiff borrowed Rs. 5,000. 00 from the defendant and kept six gold ornaments weighing 13. 5 tolas with the defendant for security of the amount as deposit or pledge or pawn. It is alleged that the defendant gave unsigned chit giving details regarding the date of transaction, details of ornaments, weight, amount of advance and also the rate of interest as 2. 5%. There was ambiguity in the rate of interest which was clarified by the defendant on inquiry from the plaintiff that due to good relation between the parties interest will be charged @ 2. 5% p. a. It is further alleged that another sum of Rs. 800. 00 was borrowed by the plaintiff from the defendant on 13-6-1975. He gave in security and pledged two gold ornaments weighing 6. 5 tolas to the defendant. On the back of the same chit again similar unsigned details by the defendants were written as alleged by the plaintiff. In this way the plaintiff received Rs. 5,800. 00. In all 8 gold ornaments weighing 20 tolas were pledged. On 7-5-1976 the defendant wrote a post card to the plaintiff that since the ornaments were not taken back and the loan was not repaid he had sold some of the ornaments weighing 7. 25 tolas 2 anni remained in balance. It was also informed that in this way Rs. 3,675. 00 remained due towards loan to be paid by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff the defendant had no right to sell any of the ornaments pledge with him. Accordingly, the suit for accounting was filed after serving notice.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the defendant denying the transaction altogether. He also denied to have written any post card to the plaintiff. Chits alleged to have been written by the defendant and the post cards allegedly written by the defendant were also denied. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation.

( 4 ) THE trial Court did not find any force in the plea that the suit was barred by limitation. It further found that the plaintiff succeeded in establishing his claim. Accordingly, the decree for accounting was passed and in the preliminary decree itself, the trial Court appointed the Commissioner to take accounts and submit report.

( 5 ) AN appeal was preferred which was dismissed hence this Second Appeal. Only question formulated in this appeal was :"whether the Court can rely on its own comparison of the disputed signatures with those of the admitted ones without the assistance of experts evidence. "

( 6 ) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the appellant at length and going through the judgment of the two Courts below and the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that both the Courts below adopted erroneous approach of comparing admitted signature of the defendant on his written statement and Vakalatnama filed in the trial Court as well as from the alleged handwriting of the defendant on the two post cards allegedly written by him with the disputed writing. Other evidence was also considered by the two Courts below but the question is whether the Court can compare the disputed and admitted hand -writing or signatures without aid from the expert or without aid from the text-book of the authorities on comparison of handwriting etc. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant has been that the approach of the two Courts below was totally erroneous and that it is not mentioned even in the judgment whether it was comparison by naked eye or by magnifying glass or by some other scientific method or that the two Courts below while forming opinion about handwriting and signature considered any text-book on handwriting and fingerprint comparison. He also placed reliance upon Division Bench verdict of this Court in S. M. Sharma v. South Gujarat university, [1982 (1)] XXIII (1) GLR 223 at page 251. In this case several cases of the Supreme Court and the Privy Council have also been referred.

( 7 ) SECTION

Click Here to Read the rest of this document