Judgment :- 1. Plaintiff it the appellant. She filed the suit, for partition claiming 7/80 shares in the suit properties. The Sub Judge, Manjeri granted a preliminary decree for partition as prayed for by the plaintiff. Defendants filed A. S.25 of 1980 before the District Court, Manjeri. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal and non-suited the plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff is the sister of defendants 1 to 4. 5th defendant is her sister and 6th defendant is her mother. The properties belonged to deceased Muhammed, father of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the death of her father the properties devolved on her and other legal heirs and that they continued to be in joint possession of the properties. As against the plaintiff's claim for partition defendants contended that plaintiff's cannot claim any right to the properties as she had already assigned her rights in the properties to the second defendant on 2-10-1964 for valuable consideration. Defendants contended that the properties were later partitioned by them as per a registered partition deed dated 13-11-1978 and that they are in separate possession of the same. 3. Defendants very much relied en Ext. B-1 alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the second defendant. Execution of Ext. B-1 is flatly denied by the plaintiff. Learned Sub Judge accepted the case of the plaintiff and held that she had not executed Ext. B-1 document and accordingly decreed the suit. On the other hand learned District Judge held that Ext. B-1 was really executed by the plaintiff in favour of the second defendant and as she had assigned her undivided rights in the properties to the second defendant she cannot claim any right what-so-ever in the properties. 4. In view of the rival contentions of the parties the crucial point to be considered is whether Ext. B-1 was really executed by the plaintiff in favour of the second defendant. Contention of the plaintiff is that the District Judge went wrong in dismissing the suit mainly relying on the report Ext. 0-1 of the Finger Print Expert. Counsel submitted that apart from the evidence of D. W.2 (Finger Print Expert) there is no acceptable evidence to hold that the plaintiff had executed Ext. Contention of the plaintiff is that the District Judge went wrong in dismissing the suit mainly relying on the report Ext. 0-1 of the Finger Print Expert. Counsel submitted that apart from the evidence of D. W.2 (Finger Print Expert) there is no acceptable evidence to hold that the plaintiff had executed Ext. B-1 in favour of the second defendant and as D. W. 2 could not compare the photographic enlargements of the thumb impressions he could not reach a correct finding after examining the disputed thumb impression in Ext. B-1 and the thumb impression of the plaintiff taken in the Court. Counsel for the defendants submitted that a reading of Ext. C-1 report will clearly show that the conclusion reached by D.W. 2 can never be wrong as D.W.2 found 10 similar identical ridge characteristics in the specimens compared by him. As he had also occasion to see the photographic enlargements it is idle to contend that there was really no basis for the conclusion in Ext. C-1 report. As D. W. 2 on a comparison found 10 identical ridge characteristics in the photographic enlargements of the thumb impression -importance of Ext. C-1 cannot be brushed aside. It is true that in cross-examination D. W. 2 stated that on 5-8-1979 the photographic enlargements (Exts. G-2 and G-3) were not available with him. But the report Ext. 0-1 dated 18-9-1979 reveals that D.W. 2 could compare the photographic enlargements of both the thumb impressions. 5. It is indisputable that finger prints offer one of the positive means of identification. It is useful to refer to page 3 of C.E. Chapel's Finger Printing. A Manual of Identification where it is stated: "Finger prints offer the one positive means of identification that never changes from the cradle to the grave. Plastic surgery may change the contours of your face, ill health and old age may shorten your stature, but the arches and whorls that graced your fingers and thumb! at birth will still be there when you reach the end of life's journey." The result of examination of finger prints give a very valuable clue in case where documents are disputed. As held in Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1979 S. C. 1708) science of identifying the thumb impression is an exact science and does not admit of any mistake or doubt. As held in Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1979 S. C. 1708) science of identifying the thumb impression is an exact science and does not admit of any mistake or doubt. Human ingenuity has not so far been successful to forge finger prints. Scientific study and analysis have established that finger prints cannot be forged. They can be imitated or tampered with as written signatures, but no method or process has ever been discovered whereby finger-prints can be successfully counterfeited or tampered with. That being the position evidence of D. W. 2 and Ext. C-1 report offer unimpeachable evidence with regard to the fact that the thumb impression in Ext. B-1 was really that of the plaintiff. 6. Another factor which would also support the defendants' case is the inordinate delay in filing the suit for partition. Though plaintiff's father died in 1951 the suit was filed only in 1978. The partition deed effected by the defendants including plaintiff's mother makes mention of Ext. B-1. Thus it virtually recognises the second defendant's right pursuant to Ext. B-1. It is difficult to conceive that all the members of plaintiff's family have adopted hostile attitude towards her. Recognition of Ext. B-1 in the partition deed is a telling circumstance in favour of the second defendant's case. 7. The learned District Judge on a consideration of the evidence has come to the finding that Ext. B-1 was executed by the plaintiff and so she is not entitled to claim any share in the properties. As held in Dudh Nath Pandy v. Suresh Chandra Battasali (1986 (3) SCC 360) the High Court cannot set aside findings of fact of first appellate court and come to a different conclusion on re-appraisal of evidence. In Afsar Shaikh v. Soleman Bibi (AIR 1976 SC 163) it is held as follows: "The scope of the powers of the High Court to interfere in second appeal with judgments and decrees of Courts below Is indicated in S.100,101 and 103 of the C.P.C. Broadly, the effect of S.100 and 101, read together, is that a second appeal is competent only on the ground of an error in law or procedure and not merely on the ground of an error on a question of fact. The High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the 'ground of an erroneous finding of fact, however gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be." I find no reason to interfere. The Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Dismissed.