MD. YUNUS vs ABDUR RAHIM AND 4 Other
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's second appeal and affirming concurrent findings of the lower courts that dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The petitioner's claim was based on a disputed sale deed alleged to have been executed by defendant No. 1. The core legal question involved the determination of the authenticity of the execution of the sale deed in light of expert handwriting evidence, comparison of admitted signatures, and supporting oral testimony. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate court and the High Court regarding the non-execution of the sale deed by defendant No. 1 were well-founded and supported by both expert and oral evidence. The Court further held that no adverse inference could be drawn against the defendant for failing to supply standard signatures where the plaintiff had not requested such a measure for comparison. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of a sale deed can be interfered with when supported by expert and oral evidence?
- Can an adverse inference be drawn against a party for failing to supply standard signatures when the opposing party never requested the court to obtain and send such signatures for expert comparison?
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of the order of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's Second Appeal and confirming the order of the lower appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff petitioner's suit.
2. The petitioner's claim in the said suit was based on the sale deed, Exh. 1, alleged to have been executed in his favour by defendant No. 1 on receipt of a partial consideration of Rs. 450 out of the stipulated price of Rs. 500.
3. Defendant No. 1 denied the execution of Exh. l., and on a comparison of his admitted signatures in another sale deed,. Exh. C-2 with the signatures of the executant in the questioned deed, Exh. 1, the Handwriting Expert, who was a witness, found that the signatures on the two different deeds were in two different hands. Besides there were the standard signatures of defendant No. 1, namely, on the vakalatnama and the written statement, and the lower appellate Court found that the signature of defendant No. 1 in Exh. C-2 tallied with his signatures in the vakalatnama and the written statement.
4. The oral evidence also supported the finding of the lower appellate Court that defendant No. 1 did not execute Exh.
1. The High Court on a review of all the evidence fully agreed with this finding.
5. There is hardly any force in the petitioner's contention that inasmuch as defendant No. 1 failed to supply his standard signature as directed by the trial Court it should have drawn an inference adverse to the defendant. It appears that the petitioner never wanted that such signature should be obtained by the Court and sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison with his signature in Exh. 1.
6. There is no substance in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.