MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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