JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad dated 23-2-1984 through which he has recommended that the orders passed by the Tahsildar and S.D.O. be set aside and the revision be allowed. 2. The facts in brief of this case are that one Girraj Kishor was the male tenure-holder of the disputed property. On his death opposite party Hukum Singh applied for mutation on the basis of a will dated 11-7-1977. On publication the revisionist filed an objection alleging that no will had been executed in favour of Hukum Singh by the deceased. The objectors put-forward a will in support of their own case alleging that it had been executed in his own favour by Girraj Kishor and, therefore, they are his successors. They also filed another mutation application also on the basis of the said will dated 14-3-1978. Both the cases were tried together. It also happened so that Girraj Kishor had executed a sale deed in favour of another person in respect of one plot and the copy of the sale deed was brought on the record. The learned Tahsildar compared the signatures of Girraj Kishor existing on the sale deed with those on the wills and found that the will executed in favour of Hukum Singh was genuine and that the two signatures tallied together and, therefore, allowed the application of Hukum Singh and rejected the application and objection of the revisionist. An appeal filed against that order was also dismissed, hence a revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner who held that the trial court went out of his powers by comparing the signatures existing on the sale deed and wills and, therefore, has recommended that the orders of the courts below be annulled. He has however not made any recommendation as to what order should be passed in case the orders of the courts below are set aside. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties, perused the records and the impugned judgments. 4. It appears from the judgment of the Tahsildar that he has laboured a lot by comparing the signatures on the will and the sale deed and thereby he has acted in the capacity of an Expert. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties, perused the records and the impugned judgments. 4. It appears from the judgment of the Tahsildar that he has laboured a lot by comparing the signatures on the will and the sale deed and thereby he has acted in the capacity of an Expert. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the Tahsildar could not exercise bis power and he should have merely relied upon the other evidence adduced by the parties. The counsel for the opposite party however defended the Tahsildar's action and argued that he was fully competent to make a comparison between two disputed signatures. 5. I understand that there is no doubt that the court is the final arbiter about the genuineness of any hand-writing or thumb impression but it can raise its conclusion on the basis of the evidence and cannot jump upon any conclusion without any evidence. In the nut-shell a court though may scrutinise and shift the evidence of an expert but itself cannot exercise the function of an expert. It follows that the court can believe or discredit the evidence of an expert and for that purpose it may form its own opinion on the basis of the material on record but it would be beyond its scope to act as an expert itself. I, therefore, fully agree with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Tahsildar could not have taken upon himself the task of comparing the disputed signatures and he acted illegally in doing so. The learned S.D.O. also fell into the same error and committed an illegality in maintaining the judgment of the Tahsildar. The learned Tahsildar instead of comparing the signatures should have based his decision on the other evidence on record which I am afraid he has not properly done. In these circumstances his judgment does not deserve to be maintained. The order of the S.D.O. is also liable to be set aside on the same reasons. The learned Additional Commissioner has also not reached to any conclusion about the genuineness of any will. Consequently the case has to be remanded to the trial court for redecision. 6. In these circumstances the revision is allowed and the order of the trial court and the appellate court both are set aside. The learned Additional Commissioner has also not reached to any conclusion about the genuineness of any will. Consequently the case has to be remanded to the trial court for redecision. 6. In these circumstances the revision is allowed and the order of the trial court and the appellate court both are set aside. The case is remanded back to the Tahsildar with the direction that he should give an opportunity to both the parties to get their documents examined by their experts asking them to comparing the signatures on the will with the admitted signatures of the deceased Girraj Kishor and to permit them to produce any other evidence which they want and then to decide the case afresh according to law. In case the parties declined to avail the services of any expert presumption according to law may be drawn.