The validity of a power of attorney can be determined through expert testimony on fingerprint analysis, which must be carefully evaluated against the context of the case.

JUDGMENT

This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.134 of

2001 of the Munsiff Court, Perinthalmanna, which is affirmed by the Sub Court, Manjeri in A.S. No.34 of 2017.

2. The appellants herein are the legal heirs of the 1^st defendant and the 2^nd defendant himself in the Original Suit, which was filed for recovery of possession and for prohibitory injunction. As per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from one Usman, S/o Mammi Haji, by virtue of the sale deed No.2788/1996 of SRO Melattur. While so, the plaintiff sold a portion of the property, and the remaining property is with him. Since he was residing far away from the property, it was contended that the defendants were trying to trespass into the plaint schedule property, and hence the suit was filed. The 1^st defendant contended that by virtue of a registered power of attorney No.78/2001 of SRO Kumaranelloor, executed by the plaintiff in favour of Ponniath Usman, he had assigned 25 cents of land in R.S. No.156/IA3 as per sale deed No.3629/2001 in favour of the 1st defendant and by virtue of the same power of attorney, he had assigned 65 cents of land in the said survey number in favour of the second defendant as per sale deed No.3632/2001. Based on this averment, the plaintiff amended the suit and sought recovery of possession. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A5 documents were marked, and PW1 was examined. On behalf of the defendants Exts.B1 to B6(a) documents were marked and DW1 to DW3 were examined. The originals of the documents from the Sub Registrar’s office were produced as Exts.X1 and X2. Since the power of attorney was disputed, the same was sent for expert opinion and Exts.X3 to X5 were marked. CW1, the Fingerprint Expert, was examined to prove the contents of Ext.X3 dated 9.1.2015. According to the report submitted by the Fingerprint Expert, the thumb impression appearing on the power of attorney was not that of the plaintiff. Thus, the trial court concluded that the power of attorney itself is a forged document, and therefore, no consequences could be attributed to the sale deed executed in favour of the appellants and accordingly decreed the suit. Aggrieved by that, the defendants preferred A.S. No.34 of 2017. Along with the appeal, I.A. No.734 of 2018 was also preferred, seeking permission to produce the judgment of the criminal court wherein the appellants were acquitted of the criminal charges of forgery and also creation of the sale deed.

Therefore, it was contended that since the criminal court had acquitted the appellants, the sale in their favour should be upheld. By judgment dated 4.10.2019, the first appellate court rejected the contention and dismissed the appeal and hence the present appeal.

3. Heard Sri.J.S. Ajithkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. K. Dilip, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the courts below could not have relied solely on the report of the fingerprint expert to find out whether the power of attorney was validly executed. At any rate, the signature of the plaintiff having not been subjected to an expert opinion, there was no occasion for the trial court to conclude that the power of attorney was a forged document. He would further point out that since the criminal court had acquitted the appellant and the said Usman from the charges levelled against them, the same should have at least been considered by the first appellate court as a probative value for the purpose of determining the real issue in the case.

5. Per contra, Sri. K. Dilip, the learned counsel appea