M.F.A No.684/03 is preferred against the judgment in O.S.No.1 of 1989 of Additional District Court, Pathanamthitta and the other case is filed against the judgment in O.S.No.4 of 1988 of Additional District Court, Pathanamthitta. For the purpose of appreciating the case, I shall briefly refer to the facts of the case. Here the subject matter is regarding the genuineness and acceptability of the Wills. One Aleyamma, according to the case of the defendants had executed a Will Ext.B2 in the year 1964 and the plaintiff in O.S No.1/89 would contend that she had executed a Will on 8.6.1980. It is also contended that the will of 1964 is not a valid document. Plaintiff in

O.S. No. 4/88 would contend that the Will Ext.A4, alleged to have been executed in the year 1980, is a forged document and it will not have any effect. So the decision of the case would depend upon the acceptability of one of these Wills. Original plaintiff in O.S.No.4/88 is one of the sons of Aleyamma's sister by name Saramma. According to the Will, alleged to be executed in the year 1980, the entire property is to devolve upon the husband of Aleyamma namely K.C.Chacko. On the other hand as per the Will Ext.B2 the immovable property is to devolve upon the two sons of Saramma on the condition that they have to pay certain amounts to Saramma's daughters and there is also a specific clause which reserves the right to K.C.Chacko to enjoy the property without the right to mortgage. Now Ext.B2 in 1964 Will is a registered Will. Ext.A4 is an unregistered Will. I am conscious of the fact that a Will need not be registered. But it may be one of the circumstances to analyse the correctness. Only for that purpose I have mentioned that Ext.A4 Will is not a registered one. Now Ext.A4 Will and Ext.B2 Will were sent for comparison of signature to an expert. The comparison was done by DW7 Dr.Jayakumar from the Forensic Laboratory at Thiruvananthapuram. The comparison of Ext.A4 was done with admitted signature of Aleyamma Chacko that is in A1 to A3. The admitted signatures were marked in 'S' series and the disputed signature in Ext.A4 was marked in 'Q' series. After analysis of the signatures, the Forensic Expert came to the conclusion that "Hence the result that the writer of standard signatures marked S1 to S3, S1(a) to S1(e), S2(a) to S2(e) and S3(a) to S3(d) did not write the red enclosed questioned signatures marked as Q1, Q1(a),Q1(b) and Q(c)." So the signature contained in Ext.A4 document cannot be said to be that of Aleyamma Chacko. The expert compared the signature in Ext.B2 also with the admitted signatures during period of 1959 to 1962. The expert opinioned the writings are free and natural but materials are not sufficient to hold that it is written by one and the same person. But the expert was clearly of the opinion that, that is a free writing. But so far as Ext.A4 is concerned the expert opinioned that even signs of forgery attempts is there. The classification difference in writing characters found between questioned and standard signatures mentioned above are beyond range of natural variation or intended disguise. So the categorical clear finding of the expert on the basis of scientific examination is to the effect that the signatures found in Ext.A4 cannot be said to be that of Aleyamma Chacko.

2. Now the learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends that when an expert is examined it is expected to be proved that he is really an expert whose evidence can be totally appreciated. In support of such argument the learned counsel relied on some decision as well including Sri Balakrishna Das Agarwal V.Smt.Radha Devi and others, (AIR 1989 Alahabad 133). At the outset I may point out the expert in this case is not a private expert. He is an expert appointed by the Government in the Forensic Laboratory of the State Government of Kerala. A reference to the report would reveal that his qualification is M.Sc,PhD., and DDE is specifically designated as Sc