R. K. PATRA, J.

( 1 ) SHOULD the Court, if goaded, arrogate to itself the role of an expert and compare the disputed writings of a person with other writings which are admitted or proved to be his writings and solely relying on such personal comparison form its own opinion and arrive at a conclusion on the question of identification of handwritings this is the moot question that arises for our consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF is the appellant and the defendant is the respondent (for the sake of convenience, they may be referred to as plaintiff and defendant in this judgment ). The parties are relations as will appear from the genealogical table set forth below :

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF's case is that the testatrix Amaji was the daughter of V. Kanheya. The latter had a sister called Amudu who was the grandmother of the plaintiff (i. e. father's mother ). The property mentioned in Schedule 'a' was purchased by Amudu and Amaji in the year 1940 and each of them had 8 annas interest in the said property. Schedule 'b' property exclusively belonged to Amaji. As Amaji had no children, she had lot of love and affection towards the plaintiff and her brother Bhaskar Rao