Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1058 (DEL)

Mahender Singh Sachdeva v. Kailash Rani Wadhwan

2010-10-08

KAILASH GAMBHIR

body2010
Kailash Gambhir, J. 1. By this appeal filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the appellant seeks setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, thereby decreeing the suit for possession in favour of the respondent and against the appellant in respect of the ground floor of property bearing No. E-220, ground Floor, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi. By the said judgment and decree the appellant has also been restrained from parting with or creating third party interest in respect of the suit property. 2. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present appeal are that Shri Sujan Chand was allotted plot No. E-4/220-221, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi vide registered lease deed dated 9.3.1960 and the same was got converted into a free hold property vide conveyance deed dated 9.9.1996. The property was built by a builder and Shri Sujan Chand had the ground and the first floor of the property to himself while the rest was kept by the builder. He executed a gift deed dated 24.7.1997 in favour of one of his daughters, the respondent herein Smt. Kailash Rani vide which he gifted her the property. The other daughter of Shri Sujan Chand, Smt. Balwant Kaur is the wife of the appellant herein. Due to the ill health of Smt. Balwant Kaur, she alongwith her family shifted to Delhi and occupied the ground floor of the said property. The respondent served a legal notice dated 30.6.01 upon the appellant to vacate the said premises. On failing to do so, the respondent filed a suit bearing No. 57/01/04 for possession and injunction which vide judgment dated 31.8.2005 was decreed in favour of the respondent. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court has passed the judgment and decree in favour of the respondent without appreciating the facts of the case and the law applicable. Counsel further contended that both the documents i.e. the Will dated 23.12.96 and the Gift Deed dated 24.7.1997 were executed in suspicious circumstances, more particularly when Shri. Sujan Chand was clearly attached to both his daughters i.e. Smt. Balwant Kaur, wife of the appellant and the respondent Smt. Kailash Rani. Counsel further contended that both the documents i.e. the Will dated 23.12.96 and the Gift Deed dated 24.7.1997 were executed in suspicious circumstances, more particularly when Shri. Sujan Chand was clearly attached to both his daughters i.e. Smt. Balwant Kaur, wife of the appellant and the respondent Smt. Kailash Rani. Accentuating this argument, counsel submitted that it is inconceivable that the father would not disclose the name of his second daughter in the alleged Will and the Gift Deed and would not give any reason for detracting one of his daughters from the share of his property. Counsel further submitted that late Shri Sujan Chand was in possession of the ground floor and the first floor of the said property and he got the said lease hold property converted into free hold through a conveyance deed dated 9.9.96. He further stated that the family of Smt. Balwant Kaur consisting of herself, her husband Mr. Mahender Singh Sachdeva (appellant herein) and her children were residing in Mumbai and later shifted to the said premises at the instance of Shri Sujan Chand and his wife Smt. Seeta Wanti. Counsel further submitted that one of the reasons for shifting of Smt. Balwant Kaur was that she was informed that family of the respondent was ill treating and harassing her parents. Counsel further submitted that Smt. Seeta Wanti, mother of the said two daughters, expired on 25.2.1996 and due to her demise, Shri Sujan Chand became closer to Smt. Balwant Kaur. Counsel further submitted that in fact Shri Sujan Chand was residing on the ground floor of the said property where the family of Smt. Balwant Kaur was residing, while the respondent along with her family was residing on the first floor and this fact alone would show that the father was deeply attached to his elder daughter Smt. Balwant Kaur. Counsel further submitted that Smt. Balwant Kaur, wife of the appellant died on 28.11.96 and just within a week's time the alleged will dated 3.12.1996 was executed which fact by itself appears to be quite abnormal and improbable as within such a short span of time no father would take any step to favour one of his daughters while disfavouring the family members of the other daughter who died just a week ago from the date of the execution of the Will. Counsel further contended that if the validity of the Will is taken as correct then again there was no need for the father to execute a Gift Deed in favour of the same daughter. 4. Counsel further contended that the execution of the Gift Deed dated 24.7.1997 is under suspicious circumstances as in the Gift Deed again, neither the name of Smt. Balwant Kaur has been disclosed nor any reasons have been spelled out as to why the father thought of gifting both the floors to the respondent. Counsel further submitted that the execution of both the said documents was never disclosed to the appellant while it is an admitted fact that the appellant and his family were in occupation of the ground floor of the said property. Counsel further submitted that no reasons have been given by the respondent as to why the legal notice dated 30.06.2001 was served upon the appellant after a gap of about four years and then immediate filing of the suit on 16.7.2001. Counsel also stated that due reply was sent by the appellant to the said legal notice thereby refuting the claim of the respondent as the lawful donee of the said property. Counsel for the appellant further argued that in Clause 3 of the Gift Deed, it has been wrongly mentioned that the respondent was in possession of the entire property i.e. ground and the first floor in juxtaposition to the fact that the appellant along with his family was admittedly in possession of the ground floor of the said property. On similar lines, in Clause 7 of the Gift Deed, the respondent donee was alleged to be given the authority to get the entire first floor of the property mutated or transferred in her favour in the records of L&DO, MCD and DDA etc., the counsel contended. Counsel further submitted that the witness No. 1 of the Gift Deed, Mr. Praduman Singh, was from among the relations and therefore no weightage could be given by the learned trial court to his evidence. Counsel further argued that the independent witness, Mr. K. D. Dhalia, was not examined by the respondent in evidence and therefore, the learned trial court ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the respondent. Praduman Singh, was from among the relations and therefore no weightage could be given by the learned trial court to his evidence. Counsel further argued that the independent witness, Mr. K. D. Dhalia, was not examined by the respondent in evidence and therefore, the learned trial court ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the respondent. Counsel for the appellant also argued that on 01.04.1995 the respondent got the said property assessed to house tax based on the Gift Deed without even informing the appellant and even the MCD acted in connivance with the respondent and did not call upon the appellant to either give a no objection or to file any objections to the said mutation in the name of the respondent in the house tax records. Counsel further highlighted the inconsistencies in the stand taken by the respondent in the suit as in para 2 of the plaint, the respondent alleged that she was in possession of the first floor of the said property. This stand of the respondent was clearly in contradiction of Clause 4 of the Gift Deed where the stand taken was that she was in possession of the ground floor and the first floor of the property. Counsel contended that even in the plaint there is no reference to any circumstances under which the father had gifted both the said floors in favour of the respondent to the detriment of the family of the elder daughter and also there is no reference of any kind of strained relationship between the father and the elder daughter, Smt. Balwant Kaur. 5. Counsel for the appellant laid much stress on the argument that the learned trial court failed to consider the report of the CFSL despite directions given by the High Court in this regard. The contention of the counsel was that in the report submitted by the CFSL it has been clearly opined that the English signatures of the deceased Sh. Sujan Chand in the Gift Deed (marked as Q1 to Q14) were not similar in any manner with those of admitted signatures appearing on the lease deed and the conveyance deed (marked as A-6 to A-10). Sujan Chand in the Gift Deed (marked as Q1 to Q14) were not similar in any manner with those of admitted signatures appearing on the lease deed and the conveyance deed (marked as A-6 to A-10). Elaborating his arguments further, counsel submitted that the appellant had moved an application under Section 151 CPC before the learned trial court with a view to summon and examine the hand writing expert of the CFSL who had submitted the said report but the said application of the appellant was dismissed by the learned trial court on unjustified grounds. Counsel further argued that the said order of dismissal of the learned Additional District Judge was challenged by the appellant in CM (M) No. 1927/2005 and while disposing of the said petition of the appellant, the Hon'ble High Court gave clear directions to the learned trial court to get assistance from the report of CFSL at the time of deciding the case. Counsel thus urged that ignoring the said directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the learned trial court did not consider the said report of the CFSL for taking proper assistance to decide the main controversy between the parties. Counsel for the appellant further argued that the reasoning given by the learned trial court to discard the report of the CFSL is totally unfounded as the signatures on the gift deed and in the conveyance deed were of contemporary period i.e. of 1996-97. Counsel further contended that the alleged gift deed was executed by Sh. Sujan Chand on 24.7.97 but the house tax of the said property was being assessed in the name of the respondent w.e.f. 1.4.1995 and this fact would show that the respondent had planned the things in advance to get the said property transferred in her own name. 6. Refuting the submissions of the counsel for the appellant, Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the learned trial court has passed a reasoned judgment and no perversity or illegality can be found in the same. Supporting the said judgment, counsel submitted that the respondent became owner of both the floors in the said property by virtue of said gift deed dated 24.7.1997 which was legally and validly executed by Sh. Sujan Chand in favour of the respondent. Supporting the said judgment, counsel submitted that the respondent became owner of both the floors in the said property by virtue of said gift deed dated 24.7.1997 which was legally and validly executed by Sh. Sujan Chand in favour of the respondent. Counsel for the respondent further contended that the appellant has been taking contradictory stands about shifting of his wife to Delhi as in para 3 of the written statement filed by the appellant the stand taken by him was that his wife was shifted to Delhi in the year 1994 as a part of some family arrangement, while in the cross-examination of the appellant, the stand taken by him was that he along with his wife had shifted to Delhi on 11.4.96. Counsel further contended that no suggestion was given by the appellant to the respondent who entered in the witness box as PW-1 to suggest that the said gift deed was either a fraud or fabricated document and the same was got executed by her under coercion. Counsel further submitted that in the absence of any such suggestion given by the appellant the validity of the gift deed cannot be disputed by the appellant. Counsel further submitted that the respondent had adduced the evidence of Mr. Pradyuman Singh (PW 2) who was an attesting witness to the gift deed and in his deposition he clearly stated that Sh. Sujan Chand was absolutely hale and hearty and mentally fit to execute the gift deed. The respondent had also examined one Dr. Sunil Wadhwa as PW-3 under whose treatment Sh. Sujan Chand remained and he had duly proved on record the prescription slips as Ex.PW3/1 to PW3/4, wherein Sh. Sujan Chand was diagnosed to be suffering from Bronchitis Asthma. As per the said witness, Sh. Sujan Chand was fully conscious and oriented during the relevant period of his treatment and the said evidence of Dr. Wadhwa remained unimpeached, the counsel contended. 7. In reply to the argument of the counsel for the appellant, on the aspect of examination of the CFSL hand writing expert, the counsel submitted that the appellant did not summon the said CFSL expert to examine him and it is only when the matter reached at the stage of final arguments, the said application was filed by the appellant, which was dismissed by the learned trial court. Counsel further submitted that the said order in fact became final as the same was not interfered with by the Hon'ble High Court and the only direction given by the High Court was to consider the said CFSL report at the time of the final decision of the case. The contention of counsel for the respondent was that the report of the CFSL has been taken into consideration by the learned trial court and, therefore, no grievance can be raised by the appellant in this regard. 8. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the respondent after having become the lawful owner of the suit premises started paying house tax w.e.f. 01.04.1995 and water tax from 2001 in respect of the ground floor and the first floor of the property. The receipts of the same were also exhibited by the respondent in her evidence marked Ex. PW 1/5 and as Ex. PW1/6 to PW1/9, the counsel contended. Counsel also submitted that the challenge to the gift deed on the part of the appellant was an afterthought as no such serious challenge was made by the appellant in his reply to the legal notice dated 30.6.2001 served upon the appellant, as well as in the written statement filed by him. Also, even in the entire evidence adduced by the appellant, he failed to establish any kind of bitterness in the relationship of the respondent with her father. Sh. Manohar Lal, DW-3 in his evidence clearly admitted that he never personally felt any kind of strain in the relationship between them and similarly, DW-4 Sh. Prithpal Singh in his evidence clearly stated that late Shri Sujan Chand had cordial relationship with both his daughters till his death, the counsel contended. Counsel for the respondent also submitted that the appellant failed to substantiate his plea that late Shri Sujan Chand was not in a fit mental position to execute the gift deed as the evidence led by PW-3 Dr. Sunil Wadhwa remained unimpeached, who in his evidence stated that late Shri Sujan Chand was only suffering from bronchitis asthma while the appellant did not adduce any evidence to prove the contrary. Even one of the witnesses adduced by the appellant, i.e. DW-3 had stated that the condition of Shri Sujan Chand remained good till 1996. Sunil Wadhwa remained unimpeached, who in his evidence stated that late Shri Sujan Chand was only suffering from bronchitis asthma while the appellant did not adduce any evidence to prove the contrary. Even one of the witnesses adduced by the appellant, i.e. DW-3 had stated that the condition of Shri Sujan Chand remained good till 1996. Counsel for the respondent also contended that the appellant never raised any dispute with regard to the said gift deed although the appellant had come to learn about execution of the said gift deed during the life time of Shri Sujan Chand and he had about nine months period to seek clarification about the said gift deed from late Shri Sujan Chand before his death. Counsel for the respondent also submitted that the appellant cannot raise any grievance for non-examination of the expert witness from CFSL as the appellant himself was guilty of negligence in not taking any steps to examine the said witness and the order of the learned trial court dismissing the application of the appellant for summoning the said witness having become final, after the same was upheld by the learned High Court vide order dated 30.8.2005in CM (M) No. 1927/2005 filed by the appellant. 9. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the appellant had also never disputed the Will dated 03.12.1996 duly executed by late Shri Sujan Chand wherein the testator had bequeathed the said property in favour of the respondent. Counsel for the respondent also submitted that the appellant failed to prove the alleged oral family arrangement whereby the ground floor of the property in question came to the share of the wife of the appellant as no such evidence was led in this regard by the appellant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length. 11. In the case in hand, there is unfolding of no new story i.e., legal heirs fighting a fierce battle over an immovable property. In this case, the bone of the contention between the parties is the residential house left by their deceased father, property bearing No. E-4/220, Lajpat Nagar. It is not in dispute that Shri Sujan Chand was the owner of the said property and the same was constructed by the builder with the ground and first floor coming to his share while the other floors were kept by the builder. It is not in dispute that Shri Sujan Chand was the owner of the said property and the same was constructed by the builder with the ground and first floor coming to his share while the other floors were kept by the builder. Shri Sujan Chand left behind two daughters i.e. the respondent Kailash Rani and Smt. Balwant Kaur, wife of the appellant No. 1. Smt. Balwant Kaur who was residing with her family at Bombay shifted to Delhi in the year 1994 or 1996 (a disputed fact) and during the lifetime of her parents she along with her family members started residing on the ground floor of the said property. Wife of Shri Sujan Chand died on 25.2.1996 while Smt. Balwant Kaur expired on 28.11.1996. It is also not in dispute that after the demise of Smt. Balwant Kaur, the appellant along with his family members continued to reside on the ground floor of the said property. Shri Sujan Chand died on 11.4.2002 and as per the case set up by the respondent in her plaint, Shri Sujan Chand had executed a gift deed in her favour which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar-V vide document No. 7602 in Additional Book No. I, Volume No. 1207 dated 24.7.97. The respondent has claimed the ownership of the ground and the first floor of the said property on the basis of the said registered gift deed. The respondent also got the said floors mutated in her name in the house tax records and started paying the house tax of the ground and the first floor including the water bills etc. It is also not in dispute that the appellant and his family members continued to reside on the ground floor of the said property without any hindrance or interruption either from the side of Shri Sujan Chand or the respondent. It is only on 30.6.2001 for the first time when the respondent sent a legal notice to the appellant thereby calling upon him to vacate and hand over the premises in question, that the respondent had disclosed the execution of the said gift deed in her favour by late Shri Sujan Chand. It is only on 30.6.2001 for the first time when the respondent sent a legal notice to the appellant thereby calling upon him to vacate and hand over the premises in question, that the respondent had disclosed the execution of the said gift deed in her favour by late Shri Sujan Chand. In the reply to the said legal notice, the appellant did not seriously raise any dispute with regard to the execution of the gift deed except saying that the respondent was not the owner of the said property by virtue of the gift deed and late Shri Sujan Chand continued to be the owner of the said property. In the written statement filed by the appellant as well, except saying that the alleged gift deed being propounded by the respondent is non-est and an invalid document and the story of Shri Sujan Chand making a gift in favour of his younger daughter is contrary to the facts and rights of his two legal heirs, no plea of alleged fabrication of the said gift deed by the respondent or that the gift deed was got executed by the respondent under duress due to the mental instability of late Shri Sujan Chand was raised by the appellant. 12. The entire inter se controversy between the two families i.e. respondent on one hand and the appellant on the other hand and his family revolves around a gift deed dated 24.7.97. In case this Court comes to the conclusion that the respondent had successfully proved the execution of the said gift deed in her favour before the learned trial court, then, certainly the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court cannot be interfered with and on the other hand if the appellant has demolished the execution of the said gift deed then, certainly, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court will be liable to be set aside. 13. The learned trial court framed the following issues to determine the legality, validity and correctness of the said gift deed: "5. Whether Sujan Singh was not in a position to give his consent to the gift deed. If so its effect? OPD. 5A. Whether the signature of Sujan Chand on the gift deed are forged and fabricated. If so its effect? OPD" 14. The onus to prove both the issues was upon the appellant. Whether Sujan Singh was not in a position to give his consent to the gift deed. If so its effect? OPD. 5A. Whether the signature of Sujan Chand on the gift deed are forged and fabricated. If so its effect? OPD" 14. The onus to prove both the issues was upon the appellant. The appellant in his evidence examined himself as well as examined 3 other witnesses. The appellant also got the signatures on the said original gift deed examined by CFSL. After comparison of the same with the admitted signatures on the lease deed Ex.PW1/3 and conveyance deed Ex. PW1/4, a report was filed by the CFSL on 15.09.2004. The CFSL expert was not examined by the appellant and it is only when the matter was reserved for orders by the learned trial court after the conclusion of the hearing, an application was moved by the appellant to summon the said expert witness. The said application of the appellant was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order 16.8.2005 and not feeling satisfied with the said order the appellant challenged the same before the Hon'ble High Court by filing C.M.(M)1927/2005. The learned trial court in its order dated 16.8.2005, observed that the application moved by the appellant at such a belated stage was neither legal nor sustainable, more particularly when the matter was finally argued by both the counsel for the parties. The learned trial court also observed that the said expert report was within the knowledge of the appellant as the same was received in the Court on 18.9.2004 while the evidence of the appellant was closed on 4.11.2004, therefore, the said application moved by the appellant after conclusion of the arguments was meritless and accordingly the same was dismissed. The Hon'ble High Court also did not come to the rescue of the appellant and dismissed the C.M.(M) 1927/2005 filed by the appellant. However, while dismissing the said petition of the appellant, this Court observed that it will be open to the learned trial court to read the said report and get assistance of the same at the time of deciding the case. 15. One of the grounds taken by the appellant in the present appeal is that the learned trial court in fact failed to take any proper assistance from the said report as directed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 30.8.2005. 15. One of the grounds taken by the appellant in the present appeal is that the learned trial court in fact failed to take any proper assistance from the said report as directed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 30.8.2005. Number of other objections were also raised by the appellant to challenge the authenticity, legality and correctness of the said gift deed, one of them being that in the said gift deed there is no mention about the elder daughter Balwant Kaur or her family members while Shri Sujan Chand was deeply attached to both his daughters and therefore, under no circumstance he would have favoured one daughter over the other, also that late Shri Sujan Chand and his wife started residing with late Smt. Balwant Kaur on the ground floor; non disclosure of the said gift deed by the respondent for a long period of more than 4 years; wrong mentioning of respondent's possession of the ground floor and the first floor in clause 3 of the gift deed, non examination of an independent witness Mr. K. D. Dahlia and continuous possession of the appellant along with his family on the ground floor of the property. 16. The foundation of any case is built at the trial stage. Both the parties before the trial court are required to stand on their own legs instead of taking or drawing help from some weaknesses or shortcomings in the case of the other. The appellant at no stage seemed to be serious in contesting or challenging the legality or correctness of the said gift deed. The onus, no doubt was very heavy on the appellant to demolish the said gift deed which was a registered document and was stated to have been executed by Shri Sujan Chand at the time when the appellant was residing on the ground floor of the property. Nowhere in the written statement also the appellant took a stand that the said gift deed was a forged or fabricated document. In a half hearted attempt, the appellant took a stand that the said gift deed was a non-est and invalid document and execution of the same in favour of the younger daughter is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. In a half hearted attempt, the appellant took a stand that the said gift deed was a non-est and invalid document and execution of the same in favour of the younger daughter is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt at the later stage the appellant did move an application to get the signatures of Shri Sujan Chand on the gift deed compared with the signatures on the admitted documents i.e. lease deed dated 9.3.1960 and conveyance deed dated 9.9.96, but again the appellant committed another fault by not summoning the CFSL expert in the witness box. It is only after the final arguments that the appellant woke up from his deep slumber to move an application to summon the said witness. The said application was not entertained by the learned trial court and the said dismissal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court as well. It is a settled legal position that the opinion of the hand writing expert on the question of hand writing or signatures of a person is relevant but not conclusive and such an opinion can be taken into consideration only when such an expert enters the witness box and proves his report and subjects himself to cross examination. In the facts of the present case, as stated above, the appellant did not take any timely steps to summon the said expert witness from the CFSL and therefore, not much reliance could have been placed by the learned trial court on such an opinion submitted by the expert. No doubt, the learned trial court has committed illegality in wrongly observing that the signatures appearing on the gift deed could not be compared by the CFSL expert from the admitted signatures of Shri Sujan Chand of the contemporary period, overlooking the fact that the period of gift deed dated 27.7.97 was quite near to the period of conveyance deed dated 9.9.96, whereas with the lease deed dated 9.3.60 there was a wide time gap. Be that as it may, it is quite manifest from the evidence adduced by the appellant that he miserably failed to discredit the genuineness and authenticity of the said gift deed. The appellant did not give any suggestion to the respondent who entered the witness box as PW-1 to suggest that she had fabricated the said gift deed by forging the signatures of Shri Sujan Chand. The appellant did not give any suggestion to the respondent who entered the witness box as PW-1 to suggest that she had fabricated the said gift deed by forging the signatures of Shri Sujan Chand. Once no such suggestion was given by the appellant to the respondent, the plea of forgery and fabrication taken by the appellant became meaningless at that very stage itself. No such suggestion was given by the appellant even to PW-2, Praduman Singh, who had proved the said gift deed as an attesting witness. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that Praduman Singh was a near relative is of little significance and his testimony cannot be rejected just on the ground of his being a relative. If Praduman Singh was a relative, then he was a relative of the wife of the appellant as well. Even otherwise the appellant has not brought on fore any kind of animus of Praduman Singh with the family of the appellant. Any witness who is a natural witness of any fact or circumstance and his evidence if stands the test of truthfulness cannot be rejected simply on the ground of such witness being a relative. 17. Now to examine the contention of the appellant relating to expert evidence, it is a settled legal position that the opinion of the expert is relevant as provided by section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but the report submitted by an expert does not go in evidence automatically. He is to be examined as a witness in Court and has to face cross-examination. Hence in the present case the report of the CFSL would not carry the sanctity of being the gospel truth in the absence of the said expert being summoned. Even in the event of the expert being examined, it is also an established rule of evidence that the opinion of the expert is not conclusive and has to be corroborated by other piece of evidence. It would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal, (1999) 7 SCC 280 here: "17. It would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal, (1999) 7 SCC 280 here: "17. Section 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion of experts admissible lays down that when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identify of handwriting, or finger impressions are relevant facts. Therefore, in order to bring the evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject. 18. An expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the judge to form his independent judgment by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with the other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and materials furnished which form the basis of his conclusion." 18. Therefore the opinion of the expert can be relied upon when supported by other internal and external evidence as the opinion of the expert simply corroborates the other evidence produced and is not the only determining factor. Hence the plea of the appellant that the learned trial court ought to have looked into the report of the CFSL does not cut any ice. No other evidence was led by the appellant to prove forgery or fabrication of the said gift deed, therefore, the appellant miserably failed to discharge his onus to prove the Issue No. 5A. It is also pertinent to mention here that the said gift deed is a registered document. No other evidence was led by the appellant to prove forgery or fabrication of the said gift deed, therefore, the appellant miserably failed to discharge his onus to prove the Issue No. 5A. It is also pertinent to mention here that the said gift deed is a registered document. It is duly registered with the Sub-Registrar-V vide document No. 7602 in Additional Book No. I, Volume No. 1207 dated 24.7.97. A registered document certainly carries with it a presumption of its genuineness. It implies that the donor knew of his actions and his gifting the property to the donee. In the present case, the gift deed being a registered document, the appellant had to produce cogent evidence to dislodge its veracity, a burden which he has failed to discharge. 19. Similar is the position with regard to the Issue No. 5 as none of the witnesses adduced by the appellant could prove that late Shri Sujan Chand was not in a sound disposing mind to give his consent for execution of the said gift deed in favour of the respondent. DW-2, Gurmeet Singh in his deposition only stated that after the death of his wife Smt.Sitawanti, Shri Sujan Chand became totally dependent upon the family of the appellant for his day to day requirements and did not remain mentally normal but DW 2 failed to depose as to how and in what manner he attributed the said mental abnormality to late Shri Sujan Chand. DW-2 in his cross-examination also deposed that he had seen Shri Sujan Chand signing for the last time in the year 1986-87 while the gift deed was executed in the year 1997. The evidence of Prith Pal Singh Marwah, DW-4, was also on the same lines as in his cross-examination he deposed contrary to the case of the appellant by saying that Shri Sujan Chand had cordial relationship with both his daughters till the time of his death. DW-3, Manohar Lal, also half heartedly in his examination in chief stated that to the best of his knowledge Shri Sujan Chand was not in a sound physical and mental condition after the death of his wife and elder daughter. 20. DW-3, Manohar Lal, also half heartedly in his examination in chief stated that to the best of his knowledge Shri Sujan Chand was not in a sound physical and mental condition after the death of his wife and elder daughter. 20. Therefore, the bald statement of the appellant deposing that the signatures of Shri Sujan Chand on the gift deed were forged and fabricated and he was not having a sound physical and mental condition on the death of his wife and daughter, cannot be of any strength as the said testimony of the appellant remained unsubstantiated without any corroborating evidence. The argument that simply because late Shri Sujan Chand did not disclose the execution of the gift deed to the appellant and his family members, will not lean in favour of the appellant as it can be perceived that late Shri Sujan Chand might not have wanted to create an acrimonious situation by disclosing the said gift deed to the appellant. The appellant could have lodged serious protest to Shri Sujan Chand, as the execution of the said gift deed in favour of the respondent came to the knowledge of the appellant during the lifetime of late Shri Sujan Chand as it is not in dispute that the respondent had disclosed the said gift deed to the appellant before the demise of late Shri Sujan Chand. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the appellant did not take any steps to challenge the validity and genuineness of the gift deed by filing any independent suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. 21. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the findings arrived at by the learned trial court disbelieving the case of the appellant. 22. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is thereby dismissed.