138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

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

04 September 2024 10:28 AM

By: Admin


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 

Latest Legal News