2005(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 296: 2006(1) PLR 146 : 2006 AIR (Punjab) 39 : 2005(3) LJR 372 : 2006(1) CivCC 368 : 2005(2) HLR 736 : 2006(39) AIC 235 : 2006(1) HRR 220
Daljit Singh v. Sukhwinder Singh, (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 85267
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Before :- M.M. Kumar, J.
Regular Second Appeal No. 1955 of 2005. D/d. 28.7.2005
Daljit Singh and others – Appellants
Versus
Sukhwinder Singh and others – Respondents
“Furthermore, the defendant No. 1 has also examined DW-8 Shri Anil Kumar Gupta , Document Expert, who after comparing the thumb impressions of Harnam Kaur appearing on the above said sale deeds with her thumb impressions on the Will D-1 opined that the disputed thumb impressions on the Will Ex. D-1 and the standard thumb impressions appearing on the sale-deeds Ex. D-3 and Ex. DW-4/A are identical with each other and have been affixed by one and the same person. Having examined the report of the Expert DW-8 Anil Kumar Gupta , I do not find any reason to disbelieve the same. He also elaborated each and every point in his report Ex. DW8/A for forming his opinion. Thus, the opinion of this document export is a relevant piece of evidence and also proves the execution of the Will. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants stand repelled”.
It is further appropriate to mention that the document expert Anil Kumar Gupta DW-8 has also opined that the thumb impressions on the will are of one and the same person who had thumb marked the admitted document Ex. D-3 like sale-deeds Ex. D-3 and DW4/A.
The argument with regard to document expert Anil Kumar Gupta cannot be accepted merely because in some other cases his credibility has been doubted.
Therefore, there is no substance in the argument that the evidence of the expert was liable to be discarded.
In view of the above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.