JUDGMENT

K.P. Singh, J. - This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for injunction against the Defendant No. 1. Necessary facts giving rise to the appeal are that the plaintiffs claimed tenancy and possession over the shop in question on the ground that the plaintiffs were the heirs of original tenant Brij Mohan Lal, their father. The claim of the plaintiffs was denied by the defendant No. 1 and it was asserted that the tenancy regarding the shop in question was between him and the Defendant No. 2 (brother of the plaintiffs). Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Aggrieved by their judgments the plaintiffs have approached this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The learned Counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgement of the Lower Appellate Court on the ground that the Lower Appellate Court has acted illegally in brushing aside the expert evidence. In order to prove their claim the plaintiffs relied upon a document marked as 9-G. A questioned had arisen whether the document marked as 9-G is really the receipt executed by the landlord Hargu Lal. Both the parties had examined experts and the experts had given evidence for the party on whose behalf of they were examined. In such a case the Lower Appellate Court did not accept the evidence of experts and has made the following observation :-

".............Aur vadigan ke expert ne yah bayan kiya ki is par Hargu Lal ke hastakshar hain aur prativadi Anand Prakash ke expert ne yah bayan kiya ki Hargu Lal ke hastakshar nahin hain. Lekin dono expert hindi nahin jante hain. Isliyae ye parisithitiyon men is expert ke kathan par vishvash kiya jana nayayochit nahin hai. Kyonki unko lekahan shalili shabd akshar ka gyan nahi hai. Aur jinko bhasha lekahan, shalili shabd ka gyan na ho aise lekh ya hastakshar sabit nahin kar sakte hain............."

3. The Lower Appellate Court has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in AIR 1983 Alld. 54, Gulab Chand and another v. Satya Vrat and others, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has indicated in Para 6 as below:

".............and I do not think that the expert Mr. A.N. Majumdar was right in saying that he could say on a comparison of the handwriting on Ext. A-2 that the signatures of Bhagwan Dass on Ex. A-3 were written by the same person particularly when both the writings were in Murda, a language with which the expert was not well versed. I need not emphasise the fact that even the disputed signature is sought to be proved by expert evidence on comparison with the admitted signatures of a person that evidence is of very little evidentiary value because the science of judging hand writing by comparison is not very precise, and cannot be relied upon unlike the science of comparing disputed finger prints and thumb impressions with the admitted finger prints and thumb impressions......................."

4. My attention has also been inviated to a case reported in 1966 ALT 148 Gajraj and others v. Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad and others, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed as below at page 151 :-

"It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the view of the Opposite Party No. 2 that Mulla being an illiterate person could not prove the lease in their favour is erroneous in law and he has relied on Ram Chandra v. Jaith Mal and Bheek Chand v. Parbhuji. The submission of the learned Counsel is right and is well supported by the authorities relied on by him. In order to prove the writing of a person it has been held that it is not necessary that the person must know that language in which the document has been written. If he has deposed that execution had been made in his presence and he had seen the executant putting his signatures in his presence it has been held that the document stands proved. On the same reason if a person is an illiterate and has seen some body putting his signature on a document in his presence, in my opinion, he has proved tha