The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish the execution of a sale deed and to prove that the defendant became the Bhumidhar of the disputed land.

K.P. Singh, J.

1. Mohit Koiry filed the suit claiming the disputed land as his Bhumidhari. It has been alleged in the suit that the defendant Mst. Dhanrajiya wrongly refuted the agreement and succeeded in obtaining withdrawal of Bhumidhari certificate granted to her after the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the withdrawal of Bhumidhari sanad was not binding upon the plaintiff and that the defendants threatening to interfere with the plaintiff's possession over the disputed land, hence the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession.

2. The defence in the suit was that the plaintiff had no cause of action and that the plaintiff was trying to grab the disputed land, therefore, he succeeded in obtaining Bhumidhari Sanad in respect of the disputed land by presenting an unknown woman and got a forged and fictitious sale deed in his favour and that the plaintiff was neither Bhumidhar nor in possession of the disputed land and various other pleas were taken to negative the claim of the plaintiff as is evident from the issues framed in the judgment of the trial court.

Both the courts below have given judgments against the plaintiff and aggrieved by their judgments the plaintiff Mohit Koiry has preferred the above-noted second appeal. During the pendency of the second appeal the plaintiff-appellant has died who has been substituted by his heirs, namely Ajay Kumar and others.

3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant has contended before me that the appellate court has acted illegally in holding that the sale deed set up by the plaintiff appellant was not proved in accordance with law and, therefore, the claim of the plaintiff in the disputed land has been wrongly negatived. In this connection the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant has contended that at the appellate stage an application was moved for permission to bring expert report and for summoning Register No. 8 of the Registration Department which was wrongly and illegally rejected. Thereafter the appellate court has failed to examine the admitted signature or thumb mark with the thumb mark on the entry of the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff appellant in the Register No. 8, therefore, the findings recorded by the lower appellate court are wrong and illegal. In this connection the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in AIR 1957 Manipur 9 Kangabam Bira Singh v. Manipur Drivers' Union Co-operative Association Ltd. and has emphasized the following observation in para 7 of the aforesaid ruling : -

"Under section 67, Evidence Act it is necessary that the signatures or the handwriting or so much of the document as is alleged to be in a particular person's handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting. There are recognised modes of proving a signature and they are: (i) By calling a person who signed or wrote a document. (ii) By calling a person in whose presence the document was signed or written. (iii) By calling a handwriting expert. (iv) By calling a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document is supposed to be signed or written. (v) By comparing in court the disputed signature or writing with some admitted signature or writing. (vi) By proof of an admission by the person who is alleged to have signed or written the document that he signed or wrote it. (vii) By the statement of a deceased professional scribe, made in the ordinary course of business, that the signature on the document is that of a particular person. (viii) A signature is proved to have been made if it is shown to have been made at the request of a person by some other person e. g. by the scribe who signed on behalf of the executant. (ix) By other circumstantial evidence. Vide Monir's Indian Evidence Act, Edn. 3, p. 549 ".

4. Before me it has been stressed that the appellate court failed to compare the thumb