JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for injunction against the Defendant No. 1. Necessary facts giving rise to the appeal are that the plaintiffs claimed tenancy and possession over the shop in question on the ground that the plaintiffs were the heirs of original tenant Brij Mohan Lal, their father. The claim of the plaintiffs was denied by the defendant No. 1 and it was asserted that the tenancy regarding the shop in question was between him and the Defendant No. 2 (brother of the plaintiffs). Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Aggrieved by their judgments the plaintiffs have approached this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgement of the Lower Appellate Court on the ground that the Lower Appellate Court has acted illegally in brushing aside the expert evidence. In order to prove their claim the plaintiffs relied upon a document marked as 9-G. A questioned had arisen whether the document marked as 9-G is really the receipt executed by the landlord Hargu Lal. Both the parties had examined experts and the experts had given evidence for the party on whose behalf of they were examined. In such a case the Lower Appellate Court did not accept the evidence of experts and has made the following observation :- ".............Aur vadigan ke expert ne yah bayan kiya ki is par Hargu Lal ke hastakshar hain aur prativadi Anand Prakash ke expert ne yah bayan kiya ki Hargu Lal ke hastakshar nahin hain. Lekin dono expert hindi nahin jante hain. Isliyae ye parisithitiyon men is expert ke kathan par vishvash kiya jana nayayochit nahin hai. Kyonki unko lekahan shalili shabd akshar ka gyan nahi hai. Aur jinko bhasha lekahan, shalili shabd ka gyan na ho aise lekh ya hastakshar sabit nahin kar sakte hain............." 3. The Lower Appellate Court has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in AIR 1983 Alld. 54, Gulab Chand and another v. Satya Vrat and others, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has indicated in Para 6 as below: ".............and I do not think that the expert Mr. A.N. Majumdar was right in saying that he could say on a comparison of the handwriting on Ext. A-2 that the signatures of Bhagwan Dass on Ex. A.N. Majumdar was right in saying that he could say on a comparison of the handwriting on Ext. A-2 that the signatures of Bhagwan Dass on Ex. A-3 were written by the same person particularly when both the writings were in Murda, a language with which the expert was not well versed. I need not emphasise the fact that even the disputed signature is sought to be proved by expert evidence on comparison with the admitted signatures of a person that evidence is of very little evidentiary value because the science of judging hand writing by comparison is not very precise, and cannot be relied upon unlike the science of comparing disputed finger prints and thumb impressions with the admitted finger prints and thumb impressions......................." 4. My attention has also been inviated to a case reported in 1966 ALT 148 Gajraj and others v. Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad and others, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed as below at page 151 :- "It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the view of the Opposite Party No. 2 that Mulla being an illiterate person could not prove the lease in their favour is erroneous in law and he has relied on Ram Chandra v. Jaith Mal and Bheek Chand v. Parbhuji. The submission of the learned Counsel is right and is well supported by the authorities relied on by him. In order to prove the writing of a person it has been held that it is not necessary that the person must know that language in which the document has been written. If he has deposed that execution had been made in his presence and he had seen the executant putting his signatures in his presence it has been held that the document stands proved. On the same reason if a person is an illiterate and has seen some body putting his signature on a document in his presence, in my opinion, he has proved that document. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties has not seriously contested this proposition and has not cited any authority to the contrary ; in my opinion the Opposite Party No. 2 has committed a patent mistake on this point." 5. In my opinion the latter ruling does not directly cover the case regarding expert's opinion. The former case reported in AIR 1983 Alld. In my opinion the latter ruling does not directly cover the case regarding expert's opinion. The former case reported in AIR 1983 Alld. 54 directly covers the facts of the present case. In the present case, the signature of Hargulal, the landlord, was in Hindi and the evidence of experts is also conflicting, therefore, the Lower Appellate Court was fully justified in ignoring the evidence of experts on the ground that an expert leans towards the party which examines him. Moreover, both the Courts below have discussed the evidence on record and they have not accepted the claim of the plaintiffs that the tenancy started in the name of their father. Rather, their finding is that the tenancy regarding the shop in question was between the landlord and Rajendra Kumar, one of the sons of Brij Mohan Lal. The aforesaid finding is a finding of fact which cannot be termed as perverse in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. The plaintiffs' claim does indicate that they have been set up by Rajendra Kumar to obstruct the delivery of possession to the landlord. From the facts emerging in the present case it appears that the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants is neither fair nor honest. 7. In the result, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to hear their own costs.