JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment decree dated 20-3-1972 of the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division in appeal no. 427/164/400 upholding the judgment and order of the judgment Officer, district Hardoi dated 23-7-71 in suit no. 848 of 1969. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Sri Ram and Parmai Lal, respondents no. 1 and 2, had filed a suit under sections 229-B/209/176 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, claiming to be co-bhumidhars with one-half share in certain plots and seeking division of the holdings as well as ejectment of Srimati Munian Fatima, defendant-appellant no. 1, as a trespasser. 4. The suit was contested by the appellants Srimati Muniran Fatima and Mohammad Farooq who alleged that the plaintiffs had no right in the land. The courts below have decreed the suit, Srimati Muniran Fatima and Mohammad Farooq have come up in second appeal. 5. The first ground taken in the second appeal is that the appellant no. 2 was admittedly a co-sharer to the extent of one-half share and as such the decree for damages against the appellant no. 2 is wholly illegal and void. A perusal of the plain show that the plaintiff respondents had only claimed relief against the appellant no. 1 Srimati Muniran Fatima. The courts below have not clarified that the damage will be payable by the appellant no. 1 alone. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants must, therefore, be accepted. 6. The second ground is that the appellant no. 1 being the mother of one of the co-sharers was at least in permissive possession and, hence no decree for ejectment as well as damages could be passed against her. Now, the admitted facts in the case are that one Shamir, deceased, was the original tenure holder of the land. After his death, his widow Srimati Sardaran and Mohammad Farooq (appellant no. 2) were recorded as co tenure holder. Srimati Sardaran has by a registered sale deed dated 29-10-1966 sold her half share in the holding to the plaintiff-respondents. Srimati Muniran Fatima, appellant no. 1, on the other hand, claims that Srimati Sardaran had after the death of the Shahmir remarried one Inayat Ali on 15-4-1966 and had thus lost her rights. The sale deed by which she transferred her rights in favour of the plaintiff respondents thus becomes void. Srimati Muniran Fatima, appellant no. 1, on the other hand, claims that Srimati Sardaran had after the death of the Shahmir remarried one Inayat Ali on 15-4-1966 and had thus lost her rights. The sale deed by which she transferred her rights in favour of the plaintiff respondents thus becomes void. Srimati Muniran Fatima claims to be the daughter of the deceased Shahmir. Now both the courts below have recorded the finding that the appellant no. 1 is indeed the daughter of the deceased Shahmir. Thus, in the event of Srimati Sardaran losing her right on account of remarriage, the appellate no. 1 would inherit the rights. Section 172 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act provides as follows. "172. (1) When a bhumidhar or asami who has after the date of vesting, inherited an interest in any holding:- (a)As a widow of a male lineal descendant, the male line of descent, mother or father's mother, dies, marries, abandons or surrenders such holding or part thereof, or (b)........ the holding or the part shall devolve upon the nearest surviving heir (such heir being ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Section 171) of the last male bhumidhar." 7. The question for determination thus is whether Srimati Sardaran had remarried or not. The defendant-appellants produced the oral evidence of Akhtar who was the Vakil at the time of remarriage of Srimati Sardaran with Inayat Ali D.W. 2, Abdul Rahman who was the 'Kazi' D.W. 3 Nanhe Khan; D.W. 4 Mohammad Farooq; D.W. 5 Hamid Ali and D.W. 6; Gokul; Ali whom depose about remarriage. D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 have also proved the 'Nikah Nama' (Exht. Kha-1) which is on record. Further, the appellant had given an application in the trial court that since Inayat Ali was denying his thumb impression on the Nikah Nama, the Court may obtain his thumb impression and then obtain an Expert's opinion whether the impugned thumb impressions are the same or not. The courts below have not passed any order on application of the defendant-appellants for sending the thumb impression to the Expert for opinion. This is a very serious error in law. Where a document had been duly proved in accordance with law, the courts below should have either accepted the document or should have obtained the opinion of the Expert. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act provides as follows: "68. This is a very serious error in law. Where a document had been duly proved in accordance with law, the courts below should have either accepted the document or should have obtained the opinion of the Expert. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act provides as follows: "68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. If a document is required by law to be attested. It shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence; Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specially denied." 8. Thus the evidence of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 was quite sufficient to prove the Nikah Nama as they were attesting witnesses. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act provides as follows: 73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or provided. In order to ascertain whether signature, writing or seal is that of the Person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signatures, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. This section applies also, with any necessary modifications to finger impressions". Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act reads:- "45. This section applies also, with any necessary modifications to finger impressions". Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act reads:- "45. When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger-impression, are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts". 9. Neither the trial court nor the first appellate court could presume themselves to be experts in the intricate science of comparison of thumb impressions and thus they were bound to take recourse to section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Their failure to do so not only amounts to an error in law but also has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. 10. Another ground taken in the second appeal is that consideration which have weighed with the lower appellate court are wholly invalid in rejecting the fact of remarriage. The lower appellate court has observed that at the time of alleged remarriage Srimati Sardaran was aged about sixty years and with a chopped of nose'. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that she was only forty years of age at the time. There is conflict of evidence on this point. According to the evidence produced by the plaintiff-respondents. Srimati Sardaran was sixty years of age, but the oral evidence of the defendant-appellants shows that she was only forty years of age. The question of age, however, becomes irrelevant if the remarriage is conclusively proved by the Nikahnama which, according to the evidence produced by the defendant-appellate, bears the thumb impressions of Inayat Ali, the person with whom Srimati Sardaran remarried. In the interest of justice it is, therefore, essential that the thumb-impression of Inayat Ali obtained by the trial court alongwith the original Nikahnama are sent to the expert for opinion. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to "Ram Deo v. Dy. Director of Consolidation", 1968 R.D. 99 in which honourable Shri Satish Chandra, J. (now C.J.), has held that 'where the person transferring property had acquired no interest, the sale deed, executed by him could not validly vest any title in the transferee.' I would entirely agree with this view. 12. Director of Consolidation", 1968 R.D. 99 in which honourable Shri Satish Chandra, J. (now C.J.), has held that 'where the person transferring property had acquired no interest, the sale deed, executed by him could not validly vest any title in the transferee.' I would entirely agree with this view. 12. The result is that I hereby allow this appeal and set aside the judgments of the courts below. The case is remanded to the trial court with the direction that it shall obtain the opinion of the expert on the thumb impression of Inayat Ali record a finding on the question whether the alleged Nikahnama bears the thumb impression of Inayat Ali, and thereafter decide the case afresh in accordance with law.