JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member - The facts that are bearing in contest are: Leeladhar moves a mutation application under Section 34 Land Revenue Act in Tahsildar's. The application has set forth the contention that tenure-holder Sambhar Singh has executed a registered deed of will in his favour on 27.6.1978. The relief to enter his name has been prayed for. An objection in Opposition is lodged by Bhanwarlal Singh. He refutes the will favouring applicant. On the contrary, he is emphatic that Sambhar Singh had executed a will to him on 29.8.1978. Parties are given chance to lead their evidence; they have made their representation. On 6.1.1981 Naib Tahsildar enters an order of mutation for objector Bhanwarpal Singh. 2. Applicant Leeladhar Singh has appealed. On 15.10.1981 Sub-Divisional Officer enters an order allowing the appeal; he has set aside Naib Tahsildar's order dated 6.1.1981. He orders entry fur applicant Leeladhar Singh. It is the turn of objector Bhanwarpal Singh to lodge a revision in Commissioner's. On 29.7.1982 Shri Daya Ram, Additional Commissioner submits a reference with his recommendation to set aside the orders of courts below; to send the signatures of Sambhar Singh over two disputed will deeds to hand writing expert for comparison and an expert opinion. The reference is docketed in cause list for a definitive decision. 3. It will do to decide reference on merits; the file has been perused. 4. Whether Sambhar Singh has executed a will deed favouring objector Bhanwarpal Singh or applicant Leeladhar Singh? This is capable of resolution on basis of several tangible circumstances and various factors bearing on prove and genuineness of will. What relation Shambhar Singh had with Bhanwarpal Singh or Leeladhar Singh? What are the reasons to affectuate a disposal of land in his life time in favour of A or B in favour of neither. The antecedent circumstances, reciprocal relation, the contents of the will, the under printing of testator's interest and his outlook are all crucial factors that help to determine which of the two wills is genuine and proven? Indeed, Tahsildar has decided one way and Sub-Divisional Officer the other way. I am sorry for Additional Commissioner who did not have the discrement to undertake a measure of analysis to come to a sure conclusion amid the plea and the controversy. Indeed, Tahsildar has decided one way and Sub-Divisional Officer the other way. I am sorry for Additional Commissioner who did not have the discrement to undertake a measure of analysis to come to a sure conclusion amid the plea and the controversy. He is sadly mistaken in his perception that hand writing expert will dependantely supply a clue to such an intractable confusion. That is not so. In AIR 1959 Pat. 328 it has been expressed: "The opinion of an expert engaged by a party-suffers from the defect that it is given by a remunerated witness. He knows beforehand why he has been called and what the party calling him wishes to be proved. It is not improbable that he has an unconscious bias in favour of the party. These circumstances to great extent, detract from the weight to be attached to such witness' opinion." The same is elucidated in AIR (32)1945 PC 174. This case form Oudh was heard by five Law Lords; the leading opinion handed down by Lord Goddard. The meaning of an expert is mediated." There cannot be any mere unsatisfactory evidence than that of an interested party called as an expert." 5. It is important to remember that expert evidence is not a safe basis for holding forgery; AIR SC 189. No one can be a liar or forger merely on the strength of an expert evidence; AIR 1954 Pep 81; 1973 Cr. L.J. 76, 1977 See (Cr.) 313. It is not obligatory on court to rely on expert evidence; AIR 1957 SC 381 , AIR 1967 SC 778 (1977) 2 SCC 310, 1977 See (Cr.) 313. Expert evidence is not conclusive; AIR 1960 Mys. 220. Expert evidence is a weak evidence; AIR 1959 SC 316, AIR 1956 Bombay 129. It has only corroborative value 1980 ALJ 230. Expert evidence on comparison of disputed with unexhibited document is not conclusive AIR 1961 Cal. 461 . The thing that so much excites my distrust is that an expert is heavily remunerated to attest the contention of a party who calls him in the witness stand. They are not impartial AIR 1921 Cal. 126; AIR 1945 P.C. 174 . In mutation proceeding an expert should seldom be called in because expert of Leeladhar will..sign, to his tune; has Bhanwarpal's expert will sing to his. They are not impartial AIR 1921 Cal. 126; AIR 1945 P.C. 174 . In mutation proceeding an expert should seldom be called in because expert of Leeladhar will..sign, to his tune; has Bhanwarpal's expert will sing to his. It will be no sweet music to Shri Daya Ram, Additional Commissioner; rather jarring to his ears. Here, as everywhere, one can never escape from the tiresome obligation to think, to evaluate, to asses. 6. Upon all I consider, the reference is misconceived; is rejected. Additional Commissioner is directed to decide revision on to law.