The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove a sale deed through other evidence when attesting witnesses are not examined, and the admissibility of the opinion of Handwriting and Finger Print Expert in court.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The plaintiff-appellant is in the Regular Second Appeal against the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial Court.

2. In the considered view of this Court, the question which requires consideration is "whether it is incumbent on the vendee to examine the Handwriting and Finger Print Expert in case attesting witnesses of the registered sale deed have not been examined?"

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land measuring 24 kanals claiming that he is owner and has come to know from the revenue official that the entry of the land has been mutated in favour of the defendant.

4. The defendant contested the suit and pleaded that the plaintiff had sold the land vide registered sale deed dated 01.02.1980 for a sum of Rs.7,500/- out of which Rs.2,500/- was paid as earnest money and Rs.5,000/- was paid at the time of registration which was received as a grant from the Government. It was further pleaded that the payment was made by Welfare Department to the purchaser. It was pleaded that the land was barani (uncultivable) and, therefore, there was scheme for sale of the land to ensure development.

5. The suit was filed on 06.09.1991 i.e. after a period of 11 years. Initially, the trial Court decreed the suit as the sale deed was not produced and in fact the defendant did not lead any substantive evidence, however, learned First Appellate Court remanded the case back to the trial Court while granting opportunity to the defendant to lead evidence. After remand, the defendant led following evidence:-

1. DW1-Tarsem Lata, Registration Clerk, who produced the record of the registration and it was found that one counterpart of the sale deed which bears thumb impressions/signatures of the parties and witnesses as well as Registering Authority, is available.

2. Vendee-defendant appeared in evidence as DW2, who had also signed the sale deed and deposed that the sale deed was executed by the plaintiff in his presence and he had also signed the same in the presence of the witnesses.

3. Bachan Singh-DW3, Scribe of the sale deed, was produced.

4. Mohan Singh, Tehsil Welfare Officer, was examined as DW4 who proved that the sale deed was executed in his presence by Karam Singh-plaintiff and he paid Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff.

6. Even after remand, the trial Court decreed the suit, however, the learned First Appellate Court has reversed the findings.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant while referring to Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has submitted that it was necessary for the vendee defendant-respondent to prove that the sale deed is in his handwriting and, therefore, it was incumbent on the defendant to produce Handwriting and Finger Print Expert to prove the thumb impressions of the vendor. He further referred to the order of remand wherein the Court had made observations while remanding the case back to the trial Court that the sale deed would be permitted to be proved through secondary evidence and the thumb impressions of the vendor can be proved by examining the Handwriting and Finger Print Expert, since science of comparing finger print is cent percent.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the sale deed has been proved by examining four witnesses. He further submitted that the Tehsil Welfare Officer who was Government official having no personal interest, has supported the case of the vendee-respondent who stated in his deposition that the payment of Rs.5,000/- at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed was paid by him. He further submitted that no suggestion was given to the Tehsil Welfare Officer by counsel for the plaintiff that the Tehsil Welfare Officer does not know the plaintiff-vendor personally or the payment as alleged was not handed over by him.

9. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tehsil Welfare Officer has not stated that he kn