Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme 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