JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral):- The appellants who were defendants No. 1 and 2 before the trial court have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court whereby appeal of the plaintiff-respondent was accepted and suit filed by her for joint possession of half share of the suit land, was decreed. 2. As per the averments in the suit, one Kishna s/o Rama Nand was the husband of the plaintiff-respondent who died on 10.4.1972. The said Kishna was the owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of half share. After the death of Kishna his share was inherited by her. The defendants No. 1 to 3 were the real nephews of the husband of the plaintiff who succeeded in obtaining a consent decree dated 3.5.1989 passed in civil suit No. 264 of 26.4.1989 from the court of Shri M.L. Bansal, the then Sub Judge First Class, Narwana by misrepresentation and by playing fraud upon the plaintiff and the court. The aforesaid judgment and decree dated 3.5.1989 was null and void. It was further averred that after the death of her husband, defendants No. 1 to 3 took the land on batai from plaintiff who was having full faith and confidence in them because of their near relationship. However, in the month of March 2002, defendant No. 1 refused to pay any batai to the plaintiff by saying that she was no more owner of the suit land. Then she came to know that defendants had played fraud upon her by obtaining the aforesaid judgment and decree. It is further averred that plaintiff never appeared in the court nor engaged any counsel and did not make any statement admitting the claim of defendants No. 1 to 3 and it appears that some other lady was produced by the defendants in the civil suit No. 264 of 1989 instead of the plaintiff. It is her further case that she never filed any written statement nor engaged Shri Bhim Singh as her counsel for the aforesaid suit. Neither any family settlement ever took place between the parties. It is her further case that she never filed any written statement nor engaged Shri Bhim Singh as her counsel for the aforesaid suit. Neither any family settlement ever took place between the parties. There was no question of the defendants having any pre-existing right in the property of the plaintiff as by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she was the absolute owner of her property and in fact the judgment and decree dated 3.5.1989 was a devise to frustrate the law. Hence, the suit. 3. Upon notice, defendants No. 1 2 and 4 to 8 filed their joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was further submitted that plaintiff was being looked after and served by the defendants No. 1 to 3 and because of that family settlement admitting the claim of defendants No. 1 to 3 took place and plaintiff herself went to the civil court at Narwana and engaged counsel and filed written statement and gave statement in the court admitting the family settlement and the decree was passed accordingly. It was also submitted that the defendants have become owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of the adverse possession. Other averments were denied. 4. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their rival claims and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, the trial court under issues No. 1 to 5 held that the judgment and decree dated 3.5.1989 passed in civil suit no. 264 of 1989 was valid and it could not be proved by the plaintiff-respondent that some impostor was produced in the court in her place. It was also held that decree was not compulsorily registrable and the suit was barred by limitation. However, plea of adverse possession taken by the appellants was also rejected. Consequent to these findings, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 5. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the plaintiff-respondent before the lower appellate court. 6. It may also be relevant to mention that during the course of arguments before the lower appellate court vide order dated 25.9.2006, it was observed that controversy in hand could be completely and effectively decided if the exhaustive report regarding thumb impressions was obtained. 6. It may also be relevant to mention that during the course of arguments before the lower appellate court vide order dated 25.9.2006, it was observed that controversy in hand could be completely and effectively decided if the exhaustive report regarding thumb impressions was obtained. Thereafter, the matter was sent again to the trial court for comparison of thumb impression of the plaintiff-respondent in the present litigation and upon the statement allegedly made by her in the previous litigation in which judgment and decree dated 3.5.1989 was passed. The plaintiff-respondent then examined Shri Shamsher Singh Malik. Opportunity was also afforded to the appellants who examined their expert Shri N.K. Jain and thereafter on the basis of the report of Shri Malik and on re-appraisal of the evidence on record, passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.1.2010, accepted the appeal with costs and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for joint possession of the suit land. 7. Not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, defendants No. 1 and 2 have filed the instant appeal challenging the aforesaid decree. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the opinion of the expert which is contrary to the opinion of the other expert as also to the evidence on record cannot be made the basis for allowing the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent and thus judgment of the lower appellate court is perverse and is based upon misreading of the pleadings, evidence and is liable to be set aside. On the basis of the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal for consideration of this Court:- 1. Whether the opinion of an expert which is contrary to the opinion of other expert as also to be the evidence on record, be made the basis for allowing the appeal and passing the impugned judgment and decree in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court is perverse and as such liable to be set aside as the same is based upon non-reading and misreading of the pleadings, evidence and the applicable legal provisions to the facts of the case? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court is perverse and as such liable to be set aside as the same is based upon non-reading and misreading of the pleadings, evidence and the applicable legal provisions to the facts of the case? I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment and decree. 9. The parties are not on issue that at one stage suit land was owned by Kishna husband of the plaintiff-respondent and that after his death the suit land was inherited by her. The sole question which was to be decided by the courts below was whether the judgment and decree dated 3.5.1989 was actually suffered by the plaintiff-respondent in favour of the appellants and respondent No. 2. 10. On perusal of the impugned decree Ex. D1, the lower appellate court found that the plaint was filed on behalf of appellants and respondent No.2 but it was signed only by appellant No. 1, i.e., Hawa Singh and two others i.e., defendants No. 2 and 3 did not sign the same. It was averred in the aforesaid plaint that due to dispute inter se between the respondents No. 1 to 3 and the plaintiff a family arrangement had been arrived at declaring defendants No. 1 to 3 as the owners of the suit property. However, there was absolutely no date, month or year of the family settlement given in the plaint. The written statement filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the aforesaid case was placed on record as Ex. P3 which reveals that Kartari Devi filed an admitted written statement. However, the grouse of the plaintiff-respondent in the suit is that the fraud was committed upon her and some impostor was produced before the trial court. 11. To prove her assertion, she stepped into the witness box herself and also examined Shri Shamsher Singh Malik, hand-writing and fingerprint expert who compared the thumb impression of Kartari Devi in the earlier litigation, i.e., civil suit No. 264 of 1989 with the thumb impression of plaintiff-respondent in the present litigation, appearing on vakalatnama and plaint etc. 11. To prove her assertion, she stepped into the witness box herself and also examined Shri Shamsher Singh Malik, hand-writing and fingerprint expert who compared the thumb impression of Kartari Devi in the earlier litigation, i.e., civil suit No. 264 of 1989 with the thumb impression of plaintiff-respondent in the present litigation, appearing on vakalatnama and plaint etc. Shri Malik testified before the court on 9.12.2009 that he compared the disputed thumb impression of plaint-respondent with the standard thumb impressions and found that the disputed thumb impressions were not affixed by the same lady who affixed her thumb impression, i.e., the standard thumb impression in the present case. The report was proved on record as Ex. CW5/A in which he concluded that disputed thumb impressions were not of the plaintiff-respondent. 12. To rebut the aforesaid evidence, appellant examined Shri N.K. Jain, document expert as DW6 on 19.12.2009 who deposed that the disputed thumb impressions and the standard thumb impressions have been of the same person. Faced with this situation, the lower appellate court preferred the report of Shri N.K. Jain which was not supported by sound reasoning. While doing so, the lower appellate court also observed that Shri N.K. Jain was not believed by the courts in many case. This court in Balwinder Kaur v. Bawa Singh and others, 2002(3) Civil Court Cases 215 has held that where divergent opinion of the expert are available on the record of the case then court can prefer one which is more logical and well reasoned and ignore the other not supported by sound reasoning and not appealing to it. Even in the case of Kumar Sales Corporation New Delhi v. Ajit Singh and others, 2000(3) Civil Court Cases 429 it has been laid down that where one of the experts had been held to be not competent to speak about the handwriting or the finger prints by court to an earlier, opinion of his report is liable to be rejected. Not only this, while relying upon the report in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, the lower appellate court has also taken into consideration the falsity of the pleas taken by the appellants (that they have become owners in possession by way of adverse possession) found the claim of the appellants as false. Not only this, while relying upon the report in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, the lower appellate court has also taken into consideration the falsity of the pleas taken by the appellants (that they have become owners in possession by way of adverse possession) found the claim of the appellants as false. Even otherwise, the question whether the impugned decree dated 3.5.1989 was the result of fraud, is a question of fact which has been answered by the lower appellate court on reappraisal of evidence. 13. On the basis of the evidence on record, it cannot be held that the findings of the lower appellate court are not supported by the evidence on record or it was a case of no evidence and therefore, the findings are perverse. 14. Thus, I find no reason to interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the lower appellate court. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. --------------------