JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — Defendants are the appellants before this Court against a reversing judgment. The plaintiff had filed Money Suit No.4 of 1983 and Money Suit No. 9 of 1984 for recovery of rent to the tune of Rs. 7,200/- from the defendants. Both the suits were dismissed by the learned Addl. Sub-Judge, Dhenkanal whereafter the plaintiff preferred two Money Appeals. While Money Appeal No. 3 of 1990 arises out of judgment and decree passed in Money Suit No. 4 of 1983, Money appeal No. 4 of 1990 was filed against the judgment and decree passed in Money Suit No. 9 of 1984. The lower appel¬late Court allowed Money Appeal No. 3 of 1990 and dismissed the Money appeal No. 4 of 1990. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, this appeal has been filed. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is owner of the premises consisting of big and small rooms with asbestos roof situated on plot No. 2282/5765 in village Khadag Prasad and had let out the said premises to late Jayakrushna Sahu as a tenant for the purpose of running a huller machine in the month of February, 1980. It is also alleged that late J. K. Sahu paid the arrear rent and executed a rent deed (Chuktinama) in support of the tenancy and in the said Chuktinama late J. K. Sahu agreed to pay rent to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month from January, 1980. Since rent was not paid as agreed to, both the suits were filed, one in 1983 and the other in 1984 claiming recovery of Rs. 7,200/-. The defendants 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of late J. K. Sahu and contested the suit by filing a written statement. The said defendants denied the execution of the Chuk¬tinama as claimed between the plaintiff and late J. K. Sahu and also took an alternative defence that the Chuktinama was an unregistered document and was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. Their further case is that the suit land origi¬nally belonged to the plaintiff and the land was lying fallow. The said defendants denied the execution of the Chuk¬tinama as claimed between the plaintiff and late J. K. Sahu and also took an alternative defence that the Chuktinama was an unregistered document and was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. Their further case is that the suit land origi¬nally belonged to the plaintiff and the land was lying fallow. Late J. K. Sahu who was a close friend of the plaintiff requested him to part with the said land towards the southern side abutting National Highway 42 for the purpose of installing a huller ma¬chine and the plaintiff orally sold the premises to late J. K. Sahu for a consideration of Rs. 80/- in the month of October, 1965 and delivered possession thereafter. The late J. K. Sahu had came into possession and constructed some rooms and obtained the licence for operating a huller machine and also executed an agreement with Orissa State Electricity Board for electric con¬nection. The defendants alternate plea is that they have perfect¬ed title over the suit land as well as the rooms standing thereon by way of adverse possession. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Addl. Sub-Judge, Dhenkanal framed eight issues and for the purpose of deciding Money Suit No. 9 of 1984, two additional issues were framed. On consideration of the evidence, the trial Court dis¬missed the suit on the following findings : (1) The document Ext.4 (Chuktinama) is not a registered one and as such is inadmissible in evidence and no right can flow from such an unregistered document in favour of the plaintiff nor can it be used for the purpose of proving relationship of land lord and tenant. (2) Ext. 4 is otherwise also not believable to be a genuine document as the signatures of late J. K. Sahu appearing on Exts. A, B/1, C/1 and D/1 do not tally with the signature appearing in Ext. 4. (3) There is no evidence that the house and premises had been given on rent to late J. K. Sahu by the plaintiff and that the defendants have acquired title over the same by adverse posses¬sion on the expiry of statutory period from the date of posses¬sion by late J. K. Sahu in the year 1965. 4. 4. (3) There is no evidence that the house and premises had been given on rent to late J. K. Sahu by the plaintiff and that the defendants have acquired title over the same by adverse posses¬sion on the expiry of statutory period from the date of posses¬sion by late J. K. Sahu in the year 1965. 4. So far as Money Suit No. 9 of 1984 is concerned, rent was claimed from March 1981 to February, 1982 and the same is not permissible in view of Order, 2, Rule 2 C.P.C. and, therefore, Money Suit No. 9 of 1984 is not maintainable in law. 5. In appeal the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court so far as it relates to Money Suit No. 4 of 1983 is con¬cerned, was reversed and the judgment and decree passed in Money Suit No. 9 of 1984 was confirmed. The lower appellate Court passed a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff in Money Suit No. 4 of 1983 on the following findings : (1) Ext. 4 is just an undertaking by late J. K. Sahu in favour of the plaintiff which can at best be a Kabuliyat executed by the lessee and therefore it cannot be accepted as a case of lease. The document is admissible in evidence for determining the nature of possession of the defendants. (2) In view of the evidence on record, it is proved that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and constructed the house over it and late J. K. Sahu took the house and premises on rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. (3) The claim of the defendants that they have acquired title by adverse possession has no basis since they are possessing the suit land and the house standing thereon as monthly tenants under the plaintiff and accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to realise rent from the defendants at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. So far as Money Suit No. 9 of 1984 is concerned, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover rent for the year 1980-81 and the subsequent realisation of the rent is barred under Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C. 6. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law as enumerated in ground Nos. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law as enumerated in ground Nos. 7 (c), (f) and 10 of the memorandum of appeal : 7(c) When the Trial Court in exercise of power Under Sec. 73 of Evidence Act has compared the disputed signature with admitted signatures and has come to a decision, whether the Lower Appel¬late Court is justified in ignoring the decision without getting the document examined by the expert and without holding that the assessment of the Trial Court is wrong. (f) whether the interpretation of the learned lower appellate Court that Ext.4 is a Kabuliyat and not a lease deed is correct? (10) For that the learned Court below has acted with material irregularity in presuming that the defendants are tenants under plaintiff without any evidence what-so-ever save and except Ext.4, the execution of which is denied and not proved. 7. Shri A. K. Mukherjee, the learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that when signa¬ture of late J. K. Sahu appearing in Ext.4 was disputed by the defendants-appellants, it was the duty of the Courts below to take help of an hand-writing expert in stead of expressing any opinion with regard to genuineness or otherwise of the signature of late J. K. Sahu appearing in Ext.4 According to Shri Mukherjee, the lower appellate Court should not have taken the responsibili¬ty on himself in comparing the signatures appearing in Ext.4 as well as Exts. A, B/1, C/1 and D/1 or other documents to come to a conclusion that the signatures appearing in Ext.4 was that of late J.K. Sahu. He also submitted that repeated steps were taken by the defendants-appellants before the trial Court for causing production of admitted signatures of J. K. Sahu for an expert opinion but the plaintiff took care to see that it does not happen. In this connection, Shri Mukherjee also referred to certain orders passed by the trial Court. Shri Mukherjee further contended that the lower appellate Court should have looked into the orders passed by the trial Court with regard to examination of the said disputed signatures by any Hand-writing Expert and he should have sent the signatures for expert opinion in stead of taking the responsibility on himself. In this connection Shri Mukherjee also relied on some decisions which I will deal later on. 8. In this connection Shri Mukherjee also relied on some decisions which I will deal later on. 8. Shri I. C. Dash, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the signatures which are stated to be admitted signatures of late J. K. Sahu produced on behalf of the defendants-appellants would clearly indicate that the signatures of late J. K. Sahu appearing on those documents differ from each other and, therefore, the lower appellate Court was justified in comparing the signatures himself and taking a prima facie view that the Chuktinama, Ext.4 was executed by late J. K. Sahu. He also referred to some deci¬sions in this connection. 9. Coming to the only question raised as to whether the Courts below should have taken the help of a Hand-writing Expert to compare the signature of late J.K. Sahu appearing on Ext.4 with that of his admitted signatures or not, it is necessary to refer to some decisions cited by the learned counsel for both the parties. In the case of Major Stanley Hugh Barker v. Mrs. Patri¬cia May Barker and another reported in A.I.R. 1955 Madhya Bharat 103 the Full Bench observed that although it is permissible for a Court to compare the handwriting, it is generally recognised to be a hazardous test and should not be resorted to except in clearest cases without the aid of experts. The Court in this connection also referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in AIR 1938 Bombay 257 Rudragouda Venkngouda Patil v. Basangouda Danappagouda Patil where a similar view was taken. Reference may also be made to a decision in the case of Molapo Mojela v. Thabo Lerotholi Mojeela reported in A.I.R. 1928 Privy Council 276 where a similar view has been taken and it is said that comparison of handwriting by the Court is hazard¬ous and should not be resorted to except in clear cases without the aid of experts. At this juncture Shri Dash, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that even if opinion of the Handwriting Expert would have been taken, it would make no dif¬ference since the opinion of the expert is not conclusive and it is open for the Court to ignore the same unless it is satisfied that such opinion is convincing and there is no other evidence showing doubt about such opinion. In the case of Murari¬lal v. State of M.P. reported in 1980 S.C. 531 the Apex Court observed as follows : There is no rule of law nor any rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a hand¬writing expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be consid¬ered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight.” The other decisions cited by Mr. Dash are repetition of same view and therefore, I have not referred to those cases. 10. In the present case the signature of late J. K. Sahu appearing in Ext. 4 is in dispute. It appears from the order-sheet of Money Suit No. 4 of 1983 that on 22.1.86 a petition was filed by the defendants-appellants for sending the disputed signatures of late J. K. Sahu for examination by an expert. There was no objection from the side of the plaintiff and accordingly the petition was allowed. Since the signature appearing in Ext.4 is in Oriya, a petition was again filed by the defendants to call for the Admission Register of 1954-65 from Mahadev Ram M.E. School in which the Oriya signatures of late J. K. Sahu were available as per serial No. 60 dated 5.7.54 and serial No. 53 dated 19.7.65. By order dated 23.1.87 the Court observed that the signatures of late of J. K. Sahu appearing in the School Register is a private document and the advocate was directed for produc¬tion of the document and prove by that date. The order dated 18.2.87 indicates that the Headmaster of the said School was present and produced the Admission Register on that date. On 21.10.87 the said Headmaster was examined as D.W.5 and Exts. C, C/1, D and D/1 were marked on behalf of the defendants. The order dated 18.2.87 indicates that the Headmaster of the said School was present and produced the Admission Register on that date. On 21.10.87 the said Headmaster was examined as D.W.5 and Exts. C, C/1, D and D/1 were marked on behalf of the defendants. On 4.12.87 another petition was filed on behalf of the defendants to call for the Proceeding Book of the Managing Committee of Kharag Prasad High School of 1970-80 and Admission Register of that School and the order 10.12.87 indicates that the Headmaster-in-charge of Kharag Prasad High School was present and submitted that the resolution book of the relevant year had been sent to an advocate in connection with O.J.C. No. 426 of 1978 and the said documents are only available with the advocate appearing for the school. The order dated 3.2.88 also indicates that another direction was issued to the Headmaster to furnish the required documents after obtaining the same from the advocate conducting its case. Another order was also passed by the Court on 11.3.88 directing that intimation be issued to the Circle Inspector for causing produc¬tion of the documents. On 19.4.88 the Court was intimated about the availability of the documents with the advocate Shri I. C. Dash and inability of the management of the school in producing the same before the Court. Referring to all those orders it was contended by Shri Mukherjee that all necessary steps had been taken by the defendants in getting the signatures of late J. K. Sahu appearing in Ext. 4 examined by a Handwriting Expert. Neces¬sary orders were passed by the Court for obtaining the admitted signatures of late J. K. Sahu from different places but those documents were never produced for the purpose of examination by an expert. 11. On examination of the documents, such as Ext.4, Exts. A, B/1, C/1, D/1 as well as other documents, it appears that from the signature appearing on those documents it is difficult to come to a conclusion as to whether the signature appearing on Ext.4 is that of late J. K. Sahu or not. Though to the bare eye the signature appearing on Ext.4 matches with that of some of the signatures appearing in other documents, it also doesnot match with signatures appearing in some documents. Though to the bare eye the signature appearing on Ext.4 matches with that of some of the signatures appearing in other documents, it also doesnot match with signatures appearing in some documents. In these circum¬stances, in my view, the trial Court was justified in passing orders for production of such documents in which the signature of late J. K. Sahu is not in dispute. Unfortunately without awaiting for production of such documents, the suit was disposed of. It appears that in spite of several orders passed by the trial Court, the lower appellate Court took the responsibility of comparing the signatures on himself and allowed appeal. In view of the discussions made above, and relying on the observations made by the Privy Council that comparison of the signatures by the Court is hazardous and the Court should take help of opinion of an expert. I am of the view that the case should be remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal after obtaining the report of an expert on the question as to whether the signature appearing on Ext.4 is that of late J. K. Sahu or not. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the learned Additional Sub-Judge, Dhenkanal for fresh disposal after obtaining the opinion of an expert indicat¬ing as to whether the signature appearing in Ext. 4 is that of late J. K. Sahu or not. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.