Dismisses Appeal – report of the handwriting and finger print expert is an opinion which is not binding on the court – P&H HC

Share:
senior bail finger bail public accused 202 Voter Tenant Imagination Constitutional Law landlord 90 rti Punishment jails cheque compromise medical injury station evidence ada motor employee Right Punjab evidence wife penalty Punjab suicide 1 students vamendment la nd 44 fir suit interim consideration evidence property food financialfinancial Gram ginder wife order 202 natural DEMARCATION Property

In a significant development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal in a land dispute case, affirming the findings of the lower courts. The appeal, titled RSA-489 of 2013 (O&M), was filed by the defendants, Davinder Singh and another individual, challenging the decision of the trial court. Justice Kshetarpal stated, “The report of the handwriting and finger print expert is an opinion which is not binding on the court. In the present case, direct evidence, namely the statement of the marginal witness as well as scribe, proved the execution of the agreement to sell. In such circumstances, the conclusion of the courts below does not require interference.”

The dispute centered around the specific performance of an agreement to sell a property. The defendants claimed that the agreement was a forged document, alleging collusion between the plaintiffs and their commission agents. However, the High Court, presided over by Justice Anil Kshetarpal, rejected these claims and upheld the lower courts’ findings.

Justice Kshetarpal stated, “The report of the handwriting and finger print expert is an opinion which is not binding on the court. In the present case, direct evidence, namely the statement of the marginal witness as well as scribe, proved the execution of the agreement to sell. In such circumstances, the conclusion of the courts below does not require interference.”

The court further addressed the discrepancy in payment details, noting that it was natural for memories to fade over time. However, it emphasized the existence of a written contract that acknowledged the receipt of a substantial amount. The agreement was executed on a non-judicial stamp paper, which further supported the validity of the contract.

With the court upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the appeal was dismissed. The High Court stated that no grounds for interference were established. This ruling brings closure to the land dispute case and affirms the enforceability of the agreement to sell the property.

This judgement highlights the importance of direct evidence and the court’s discretion in evaluating expert opinions. The decision also emphasizes the significance of written contracts in establishing the intent and validity of agreements.

Date of Decision: 05.07.2023

Davinder Singh and another vs Mehal Singh and others 

Download Judgment

Share: