Expert opinions on handwriting are not conclusive evidence against the reliable testimonies of witnesses who directly observed the execution of the document.

J U D G M E N T

Decree for money on Ext.A1 pronote allegedly executed by deceased Radhakrishnan is challenged in this appeal by his legal representatives who are defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.259 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. The lower court limited the liability only to the extent of assets of the deceased inherited by them. Being aggrieved by the decree and judgment, the defendants 1 to 3 have come up in appeal.

2. Plaintiff is a retired School Teacher residing in Kuzhivelil Kaleeckal Veedu in Thamarakkulam Village. Sri.Radhakrishnan was the Manager of an aided school VHSS, Kuzhikkalidavaka. The first defendant is his wife who is the Principal of John.F.Kennedy Higher Secondary School. Defendants 2 and 3 are the children of :-3-:

these spouses. Sri.Radhakrishnan was suffering from some ailments and was undergoing treatment.

3. Plaintiff's case is that Sri.Radhakrishnan and wife received from him a loan of Rs.3 lakhs on 27.9.2001 for meeting treatment expenses. On 9.1.2002 also, spouses came and received Rs.1 lakh from plaintiff for same purpose. On 9.1.2002 Sri.Radhakrishnan executed a pronote in the name of plaintiff attested by PW3 and scribed by PW4 on Ext.A1. The executant agreed to return the money as and when demanded by the plaintiff.

4. On 5.3.2002 Sri.Radhakrishnan died and he was aged 45 years then. Since demand with appellants for repayment of loan failed, the plaintiff instituted suit for realisation of money based on Ext.A1 after sending Ext.A2 suit notice.

5. Appellants denied execution of pronote and contended that it was fabricated and brought into existence by plaintiff, PWs.3 and 4 jointly. They :-4-:

denied that Ext.A1 contained the signature of deceased Sri.Radhakrishnan. Existence of money transaction with the plaintiff was denied. It was contended that the plaintiff was a total stranger to appellants. According to them there was no need for taking a loan since there was sufficient source for money for meeting treatment expenses of Sri.Radhakrishnan. A criminal prosecution was also brought against plaintiff, Pws.3 and 4 before JFCM- III, Mavelikkara on the charge of forging Ext.A1 pronote.

6. The material issue taken up for consideration by the court below was whether plaintiff proved execution of Ext.A1 and that it was supported by consideration.

7. On the side of plaintiff, besides him, Pws.2 to 6 were examined. The appellants examined Dws.1 to 4 on their side. Documents admitted in evidence on the side of the plaintiff are Exts.A1 :-5-:

to A9 and on the side of appellants, are Exts.B1 to B8. The certified copies of originals of Ext.B4 series were produced on summons by DW3, Staff of VHSS School. Assistant Director attached to Forensic lab, Thiruvananthapuram submitted Ext.X4 report. Ext.X3 are the medical records produced from VSM Hospital by the Administrative Officer thereof.

8. The appellants all throughout the proceedings before the trial court contended that the signature in Ext.A1 was not subscribed by Sri.Radhakrishnan but it was manipulated by plaintiff and others. They relied on Ext.B4 series containing admitted signatures of Sri.Radhakrishnan. These documents are orders of appointment in the month of November, 2001 issued by Sri.Radhakrishnan as the Manager of the School to persons appointed to various posts. On the motion of the plaintiff, Ext.A1 pronote containing :-6-:

disputed signature and Ext.B4 series containing the admitted signatures were sent to the handwriting expert in Forensic lab, Thiruvananthapuram for comparison and expert opinion. PW6 Assistant Director after comparing the signatures in the documents stated in Ext.X4 report dated 30.4.2006 that the author of signature in Ext.A1 and the admitted signatures in Ext.B4 series is different and the differences in the questioned signature were the result of forgery.

9. In the course of the trial proceedings, there was another development which the plaintiff relied on as a circumstance in support of his case. Plaintiff produced Ext.A5