JUDGMENT Sinha, J. - This is an appeal by the Defendants against whom a suit for an injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsif but decreed by the learned District Judge of Bareilly. 2. The property originally blonged to a man named Pransukh, who sold it, along with certain other zamindari property, to one Mst. Firdausi Begam. According to the Plaintiffs, Mst. Firdausi Begam reconveyed the property to Mst. Ganga Kunwari, an aunt of Pransukh, under a sale deed, dated the 12th of November, 1895. Mst. Ganga Kunwari died in 1906 and was succeeded by Pransukh, who later sold it, along with a house, to a lady name Mst. Janki Kunwari, the grandmother of the Plaintiffs. On the death of Mst. Janki Kunwari her son, Shanker Sahai, inherited this lard along with some property, and entered into possession thereof. After his death the Plaintiffs entered into its possession. 3. The above, in brief, is the story unfolded in the plaint. 4. The defence, in the main, was that Mst. Firdausi Begam never reconveyed the property to Mst. Ganga Kunwari and that she remained in its possession till her death. In 1934 she executed a gift in favour of the father of the Defendants and also a waqf deed in his favour. The Defendants have been in possession since then. 5. The learned Munsif found that the sale deed alleged to have been executed by Mat. Firdausi Begam on the 12th November, 1895, in favour of Mst. Ganga Kanwari was a piece of forgery. The signature no doubt looked like hers, but it Was, in point of fact, not hers. On the question of possession he found that Mst. Firdausi Begam and, after her, the Defendants have been in possession ever since. 6. The learned District Judge did not address himself to the question of possession. He decreed the suit only on the finding that the deed of resale was not a fictitious document. 7. The Defendants have come to this Court in second appeal. 8. The learned Counsel contends that the finding of the learned District Judge that the deed of reconveyance, executed on the 12th of November, 1895, was not a fictitious document, is not correct. He also argues that the lower appellate Court has, at all events, gone wrong in decreeing the suit, without addressing itself to the question of possession. 8. The learned Counsel contends that the finding of the learned District Judge that the deed of reconveyance, executed on the 12th of November, 1895, was not a fictitious document, is not correct. He also argues that the lower appellate Court has, at all events, gone wrong in decreeing the suit, without addressing itself to the question of possession. I think the learned Counsel is right in both his contentions. 9. The learned Munsif bad before him two documents, executed in the year 1934, which admittedly bore the signatures of Mst. Firdausi Begam. On a comparison he came to the conclusion that the alleged signature on the deed of 1895 appeared to be that of a literate lady, whereas the admitted signatures appeared to be those of an illiterate woman. 10. The learned District Judge in the very opening portion of his judgment observed: The documents have since been produced and I scrutinized the signatures on the waqf deed and from this it is impossible to tell that the signautres on he document of 1896 is in the same or in a different hand-writing. The signature of 1934 is that of such an aged person with so feeble a hold of pen that it is impossible to tell whether it was a different person or the same person who signed a matter of nearly 40 years earlier. 11. The propriety of a Court, constituting itself an expert in such circumstances, has been called in question in a number of cases. The leading case is that of J. C. Galstaun v. Sonatan Pal (1924) 78 I. C. 668 Said the learned Judges at page 672: We may say at the outset that no expert evidence was given in this csse on behalf of the Defendant for the purpose of comparing this disputed signature with the admitted signatures of Sookias. The observations which the Judge hat made have been made on his own view of the signatures. The practice of a Judge declaring whether a disputed signature agrees with the other signantures of a certain person without the assistance of any evidence but merely on his own Inspection, has been disapproved by experienced Judges in many cases. 12. This case was referred with approval in Darshan Singh v. Parbhu Singh 1946 A W R(H C) 297 to which I was a party. 13. 12. This case was referred with approval in Darshan Singh v. Parbhu Singh 1946 A W R(H C) 297 to which I was a party. 13. It appears to me that this was preeminently a case in which the services of an expert should have been requisitioned. The learned Judge himself did not find the matter free from difficulty. The proper course for him was more particularly because ha differed from the learned Munsif on a matter on which he was by reason of his familiarity with the language and the script more competent to speak-to requisition the services of an expert. 14. On the other question, too, I feel that it is impossible for me to uphold this judgment. Even if the Plaintiffs' title was proved at some time in the remote past, but if they failed to prove their title within twelve years of the date of the date of the suit, they were clearly out of Court. 15. I think it is necessary that the case should be sent back to the Court of the District Judge of Bareilly. He will address himself to both the questions, viz., whether the resale by Mst. Firdausi Begam on the 12th of November, 1895, bad been established and also whether the Plaintiffs had succeeded in establishing their possession within twelve years of the suit. 16. I, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and send the case back to that Court with the disecion(sic) to readmit in to its original cumber and proceed and hear it according to law. Costs will abide the result.