The court emphasized the power of the court to compare writings and decide independently, even without the evidence of a handwriting expert, as provided under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Surinder Singh, J.

The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, in Civil Appeal No.56 of 1998 decided on 17.4.2003, whereby the Lower Court’s judgment and decree were reversed resulting into the dismissal of the suit.

2. The instant appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the learned Court below can substitute the report of the Government Examiner/ Expert with its own opinion which is contrary to the report of the Government Examiner/ Expert and is also not supported by a plausible reason?

2. Whether the documents Ex.DW-2/A and Ex.DW-2/B stand proved by the defendants/respondents without proving the signatures of the appellants/ plaintiffs on the aforesaid documents and also without examining any persons who are acquainted with the signatures of the appellant/plaintiffs?”

A- SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DISPUTE.

3. The dispute in the instant case relates to the land comprised in Khasra No.527, Khewat No.95, Khatauni No.109, measuring 0-6 bighas, situated in village Ghayal, Pargana Bahadurpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., to be referred as “the suit land” for the sake of brevity, hereinafter.

B- PLEADINGS.

4. The plaintiffs (appellants) claimed themselves to be the owners-in-possession of the suit land. It is alleged that on 15.9.1991, they were surprised to know that the defendants (respondents) were found recorded as owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 1.9.1986 for a consideration of Rs.6500/- whereupon the mutation No.841 was also accepted and attested on 20.1.1987. The plaintiffs alleged the suit land has a house which was constructed by them and they had in fact never executed any such sale deed in favour of the defendants. It is alleged that the defendants played a fraud. Plaintiff Sukh Ram at the relevant time was a School teacher in Government Middle School Badhokhari, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., he had marked his attendance in the register. The School is located at a distance of about 50 K.M. from Tehsil Headquarter Bilaspur. He remained there till 4 p.m., it was not possible for him to attend the office of Sub-Registrar after covering journey of three hours to reach Bilaspur. Since the plaintiffs never executed the sale deed, therefore, they were not bound by such document or any affidavit, which was not executed by them. Thus the entries made in the revenue record on its basis and the mutation both were the result of fraud, as such sought declaration with an alternative relief of possession.

5. The suit was resisted and contested by defendants on the grounds that the sale deed was validly executed by the plaintiffs in their favour for a consideration as mentioned therein on 1.9.1986. They had also delivered its possession. An affidavit was also executed by them on the basis of said document and the mutation was sanctioned on 20.1.1987. They denied the existence of the house over the suit land and further pleaded that one Devki Devi was original owner of the suit land. She intended to sell her land, as such executed Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Garja Ram, the father of the plaintiffs, who executed an agreement to sell in favour of Shri Ram Dittu, father of the defendants on the receipt of the amount of Rs.3,000/- towards full consideration the balance was required to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed, but actuated with malice became greedy, as such, executed sale deed in favour of his sons, the plaintiffs. Later on, when the father of the defendants came to know about this fact, he approached Garja Ram. It was then, the plaintiffs got the sale deed executed in favour of the defendants voluntarily to honour the agreement to sell entered by Garja Ram. Besides above, the defendants also took up the preliminary objections of estoppel, valuation and limitation.

C- ISSUES & JUDGMENT OF