JUDGMENT K.B. Asthana, J. - It appears that the whole estimate of the learned Judge of the lower appellate court, who was the final court of fact, has been affected by a wrong approach made by him in regard to the documentary evidence consisting of receipts produced by the defendant to prove that the house in dispute standing on plot No. 287 was constructed by him. The crucial question in the case was as to who constructed the house on plot No. 287, the plaintiff or the defendant? 2. The plaintiff came to the court with the allegation that the house was constructed many years ago by him family members and on partition it fell to the share of Jagat Singh, the father of the plaintiff, and the defendant Vijay Singh was permitted to live in the house as a licensee. The defendant's case was that the plaintiff had nothing to do with the house in dispute and it was constructed by him. In support of his case the plaintiff relied on oral evidence. No documentary evidence was adduced by the plaintiff. In support of his case the defendant relied upon oral and as well as documentary evidence. The plaintiff adduced oral evidence of his uncle Bhero Singh and one labourer Doma, who testified to the fact that the plaintiff constructed the house. The defendant produced Raghubar Singh, the contractor, who constructed the house. Two receipts Exts. A-6 and A-7 signed by Raghubar Singh were filed acknowledging the amount received by him for construction. The trial court rejected the plaintiff's evidence as wholly interested and relied upon the evidence of the defendant. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal, the learned Judge of the lower appellate court reversed the estimate of the trial court as to the credibility of the plaintiff's evidence and allowed the appeal. The defendant has now come up in second appeal. 3. The appellant's learned counsel conceded that the finding recorded by the lower appellate court against the appellant is a finding of fact but contended that it was not binding in second appeal as it was wholly vitiated being based on misreading of the evidence and that the court himself acting as an expert on conjectures without any foundation of fact in the evidence held that the receipts Exts. A-6 and A-7 produced by the defendant were not genuine but forged. A-6 and A-7 produced by the defendant were not genuine but forged. A perusal of the judgment under appeal shows that the learned Judge of the lower appellate court rejected Exts. A-6 and A-7 for the reason that he thought that they were suspicious documents and prepared for the purpose of this case. 4. I have perused the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel at the bar and I find that no suggestion has been made to Vijay Singh and to Raghubar Singh, the witnesses of the defendant laying any foundation for the facts which find place in the judgment of the learned Judge of the lower appellate court on the basis of which the genuineness of these documents has been doubted. The scribe of the receipt Ram Singh was also produced and no suggestion was made to him from which any inference can be drawn that he had prepared the receipts for the purpose of this suit. In a number of cases had occasion to warn the subordinate Judges of the courts below before whom documents are produced in evidence that they should not come easily to the conclusion that the document produced is a forgery unless the disputed document has been thoroughly examined by an expert at the instance of the party who alleges that the document is not genuine more so when at the trial no serious challenge is raised against the genuineness of a document on the score of its being a forged or fabricated and the trial court relies on that document, the appellate court ought not to merely on the suggestion of a counsel for the aggrieved party and on the basis of his persuasive argument reject a document from consideration. The learned Judge of the lower appellate court observed: "I very much doubt the genuineness of the receipts which appear to me to have been forged for the purpose of this case. The defence counsel has referred ............... No doubt these receipts purport to bear the signatures of Jagat Singh but it appears highly doubtful if those signatures were really of Jagat Singh." 5. Admittedly, Jagat Singh was the father of the plaintiff. If he was a witness to the receipts, then the plaintiff would have no case. The defence counsel has referred ............... No doubt these receipts purport to bear the signatures of Jagat Singh but it appears highly doubtful if those signatures were really of Jagat Singh." 5. Admittedly, Jagat Singh was the father of the plaintiff. If he was a witness to the receipts, then the plaintiff would have no case. The learned Judge of the lower appellate court has not given any reason based on the material on record why the signatures of Jagat Singh on the receipts appear to him highly doubtful and that too when none of the plaintiffs appeared in the witness box to deny the signature of Jagat Singh on the receipts. Bhero Singh is the uncle of the plaintiffs. I think his statement does not categorically show that the signatures were forgery. On the other hand, what he stated was that they could be the signatures of Jagat Singh. In the face of such evidence on record on plaintiffs behalf, I do not think the learned Judge of the lower appellate court was justified in doubting Jagat Singh's signatures on the receipts. Then the learned Judge observed at another place in the course of his judgment:- "I think no reliance can be placed, on these receipts. It looks that they, have been written on an old paper later on. It is note-worthy that the ink on both these documents has not, faded with the fading of the colour of the paper. In fact on examination of Ext. A-7 it appears that it has been written on an old paper recently. Had this document been written as back as Sambat 2000 and this paper was an old one then at places where the colour of the paper has changed the colour of ink also would have changed but find; there is no difference in this ink. Besides this, the document Ext. A-7 appears rather suspicious otherwise also because in the end after the word Sambat the figure 2000 appears to have been changed from some other figures which might have been there." 6. The above passage called our if from the judgment clearly demonstrates that the learned Judge started acting as an expert in hand writing and in regard to the quality of the paper and ink. The above passage called our if from the judgment clearly demonstrates that the learned Judge started acting as an expert in hand writing and in regard to the quality of the paper and ink. The learned Judge though not an expert and a court can never be regarded as an expert witness even if it gains knowledge from the Text Book written by hand writing experts and scientists, has no warrant to speak in language of the expert and make assumptions which are only permitted to an expert witness. A court can only when expert evidence is before it and suggestions have been made in the evidence before it that it can, come to its own conclusion. It is not possible to find any justification on the material on record for the learned Judge of the court below to assume that the receipts were written on an old paper later on or that were written on an old paper recently. The reasoning of the learned Judge that the colour of ink would have faded due to the passage of time if the receipts were written really on the date which they bore, is no reasoning, it is a mere conjecture. It is only an expert witness who on an examination of the quality of the ink used can venture to give an opinion. Moreover, in the instant case I do not find any such suggestion having been made by any of the plaintiff's witness whether expert or not and as said above no such suggestion was even made to any of the defence witnesses. 7. Yet at a third place the learned Judge of the court below observed : - "The signatures of Jagat Singh on Ext. A-8 themselves appear to be different from the signatures on Exts. A-C and A-7." 8. Here again, the learned Judge posed as an expert. A court will have no occasion or will be under no duty to form an opinion as to the identity of hand writing under Section 45 of the Evidence Act unless a challenge is made that the hand writing is a forgery. Merely the making of an endorsement "not admitted" on any document produced on evidence by the party against whom it is produced does not amount to raising a question as to the identity of the hand writing. Merely the making of an endorsement "not admitted" on any document produced on evidence by the party against whom it is produced does not amount to raising a question as to the identity of the hand writing. It only means that the party relying on that document will have to prove it. It cannot be said that the defendant on whom the burden was to prove the receipts Exts. A-6 and A-7 did not bring any legal evidence to prove them. It was then for the plaintiffs to demonstrate affirmatively before the court by evidence on record that the documents were forger and the witnesses of the defendant who identified the signatures of Jagat Singh thereon perjured themselves. Merely suggestings in the course of arguments are not substitute for such evidence which the plaintiff was under a duty to adduce for the purpose of creating a reasonable doubt on the genuineness of the contents of the documents or signatures thereon. 9. For the reasons given above, I am constrained to hold that the court below having rejected Exts. A-6 and A-7 from consideration on mere assumptions and conjectures, its finding was vitiated in as much as its estimate as to the other oral evidence and the weight to be attached to the same was affected. 10. Accordingly, I allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the court below and remand the appeal to it for rehearing and decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. 11. Costs here and hereto will abide the result in the court below.