Reena Yadav & Others vs Satish Kumar Yadav
2011 Latest Caselaw 2810 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Judgment: 25.05.2011


+                 R.S.A.No. 110/2009

REENA YADAV & OTHERS                ...........Appellants
                 Through: Mr.Manish Vashisht ,
                      Advocate.

                  Versus

SATISH KUMAR YADAV                  .           ..........Respondent
                 Through:           None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

    1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
       see the judgment?

    2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                Yes

    3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                         Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated

06.05.2009 which ha s endorsed the finding of the trial Judge

dated 15.09.2004 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Reena

Yadav seeking a decree of declaration (to the effect that Will

dated 10.02.1992 executed by late Sh. Raghunath Singh Yadav is

a forged and fabricated document and as a consequence the

consequential relief that no benefit be taken by defendant No. 1

qua the said Will) had been dismissed.

2 The plaintiff is the daughter of deceased Raghunath Singh

Yadav whose Will dated 10.02.1992 is under question. The

defendant Satish Kumar Yadav is her brother; he had allegedly

forged the Will dated 10.02.1992 in his favour on the basis of

which he had got a piece of land in Village Nangal, District Rewari

mutated in his favour; another plot of land at Sri Nagar, Shakur

Basti had also been mutated in his favour on the basis of the said

forged Will; this fact came to the light only on 06.03.2001

whereupon the aforenoted suit was filed with the aforenoted

prayer.

3 The defendants were ex-parte; none had appeared for them.

However, both the fact finding courts i.e. the trial court and the

first appellate court were of the view that the plaintiff has failed to

prove her case; her averment that the Will dated 10.02.1992 was

forged and fabricated has not been substantiated; the report of

the handwriting expert was not relied upon; it was noted that the

handwriting expert had no opportunities to compare the

signatures of the executant Raghunath Singh Yadav on the Will

with his admitted signatures; the handwriting expert has also not

come into the witness box; he was not a qualified expert; the

witness who had proved the handwriting expert report had not

deposed to the said effect; it was also not proved that the so called

admitted signatures of Raghunath Singh Yadav were in fact his

admitted signatures; the report of the handwriting expert Ex. PW-

1/A was thus disbelieved. These are two concurrent findings

returned by both the two courts below.

4 This is a second appeal. It has been admitted and on

21.03.2011, the following substantial question of law was

formulated:-

"Whether the findings in the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2009 qua the disputed will of Late. Sh. Raghunath Singh Yadav dated 10.02.1992 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff are perverse? If so, its effect?"

5 On behalf of the appellant, it has been urged that the finding

of the court below is perverse; the defendant had not come into

the witness box to dispute the averments in the plaint; the plaintiff

was entitled to the relief.

6 There is no dispute to the settled proposition of law that a

litigant who comes to the Court, before he is granted any relief,

must plead and prove his case. Plaint has averred that the Will of

Raghunath Singh Yadav dated 10.02.1992 was forged and

fabricated; to substantiate this submission the report of the

handwriting expert Ex. PW-1/A had been brought on record; the

handwriting expert who had prepared this report had not come

into the witness box; there was nothing to show that the

handwriting expert had been in a position to examine the admitted

signatures of the executant Raghunath Singh Yadav with the

disputed signatures on the Will; there was no record to show that

the signatures which have been given to the handwriting expert

were in fact the admitted or genuine signatures of deceased

Raghunath Singh Yadav. Both the fact finding courts have

returned a positive and concurrent finding against the plaintiff

holding that he has not been able to prove the said document i.e.

the Will dated 10.02.1992 was a forged and fabricated document.

This finding in no manner can be said to be perverse. Relevant

extract of the impugned judgment qua this finding has been inter-

alia returned as under:-

"...........The Plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and supposed to prove his case in accordance with law. The record reveals that the Appellant / Plaintiff relied on a report of handwriting expert to prove that the Will dated 10.02.1992 is forged and fabricated. The original Will was admittedly in possession of the Respondent / Defendant no.1 only. The alleged handwriting expert, therefore, had no opportunity to compare the signatures of the executant Shri Raghunath Singh Yadav on the Will with his admitted signatures. Further, the Appellant /

Plaintiff failed to examine the said Handwriting Expert in the court to prove his report. The Appellants failed to lead any evidence to prove that the said Handwriting Expert was a certified/recognised expert. The Appellants / Plaintiffs also did not state anything about the qualification / skill / expertise of the said Handwriting Expert. The said report was given by the alleged Handwriting Expert after comparing the signatures on the copy of the Will with certain other signatures of Shri Raghunath Singh Yadav. But it was not proved that the signatures provided to the Handwriting Expert were the admitted / genuine signatures of late Shri Raghunath Singh Yadav. The Trial Court, therefore, rightly disbelieved the report Ex.PW1/A of the Handwriting Expert."

7      It calls for no interference.


8      Substantial question of law is accordingly answered in

favour of the respondent and against the appellant. Appeal has no

merit. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

MAY 25, 2011 a