JUDGMENT 1. This Second appeal is focussed animadverting upon the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.60 of 2007 dated 17.04.2008, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.345 of 2006 dated 03.08.2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Vellore. 2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. The epitome and the long and the short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal, would run thus: (a) The plaintiff filed the suit for injunction seeking the following reliefs: (a) To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men and agents from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties namely item Nos.1 and are concerned; (b) To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit item No.3 schedule property till the plaintiff is lawfully evicted by due process of law; and (c) For costs." (extracted as such) (b) The gist and kernel of the averments in the plaint would run thus: The plaintiff purchased the suit property described in the schedule of the plaint as under: “TAMIL” (extracted as such) from the defendant, vide the sale deed Ex.A1 dated 24.12.1982. Item No.3 happens to be a promboke land, situated adjacent to item No.2 of the suit properties and hence, the plaintiff took possession of item No. 3 of the suit property also. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by paying tax. While so, the defendant without any manner of right was trying to trespass into the suit property; whereupon the suit was necessitated to be filed. (c) Per contra, the defendant filed the written statement inveighing and challenging, controverting and contradicting the averments/allegations in the plaint; the gist and kernel of it would run thus: The defendant at no point of time sold the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff. The third item of the suit properties, is a poromboke land, for which the defendant paid penalty under 'B' memo which was issued by the Government department. The plaintiff has no title or possession over the suit properties. The third item of the suit properties, is a poromboke land, for which the defendant paid penalty under 'B' memo which was issued by the Government department. The plaintiff has no title or possession over the suit properties. The defendant is Chinnaraj and he is not Kannan, whereas the sale deed relied on by the plaintiff was alleged to have been executed by one Kannan. At no point of time the defendant/Chinnaraj appeared before the Registrar for registration of the sale deed. Wherefore, the sale said deed is a forged and fabricated one. Simply because the patta got transferred in the name of the plaintiff that would not in any way confer title in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, he would pray for the dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. 5. Up went the trial, during which the plaintiff/Kanthammal examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked; and the defendant/Chinnaraj examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. 6. Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit as against which the appeal was filed by the defendant for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate court, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 7. Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, this second appeal has been focussed on various grounds and also suggesting various substantial questions of law. 8. My learned Predecessor formulated the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable in respect of items 2 and 3 of the suit properties in the light of the delivery of possession recorded under Ex.B4? (2) Whether the courts below have erroneously cast the burden on the appellant/defendant to prove that he had not executed Ex.A1? (3) Whether the finding of the courts below that the appellant/defendant had got Kannan and Ammavasai as alias names, is without any basis and perverse?" (extracted as such) 9. There are certain facts which are indubitable and indisputable and the same could be set out in brief thus: The plaintiff Kanthammal is none but the defendant Chinnaraj's father's brother's wife. Item No.3, the poromboke land is situated near items 1 and 2 of the suit properties. There are certain facts which are indubitable and indisputable and the same could be set out in brief thus: The plaintiff Kanthammal is none but the defendant Chinnaraj's father's brother's wife. Item No.3, the poromboke land is situated near items 1 and 2 of the suit properties. Ex.A1 is the sale deed dated 24.12.1982, purported to have been executed by one Kannan in favour of Kanthammal, whereas the defendant would contend that he is not the said Kannan and he at no point of time executed the sale deed. According to him Ex.A1 is a forged and fabricated one. It so happened that Chinnaraj filed a suit in O.S.No.706 of 2001 in the Court of the learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore, as against Krishnan, the husband of the plaintiff in respect of item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit properties herein. The said suit was decreed ex parte, whereupon the plaintiff, it appears took execution proceedings and obtained delivery of possession. Thereafter, the said Kanthammal took up the matter to the higher fora and got the ex parte decree set aside and it appears that the said suit is pending for trial. Hence in view of the same, the issue No.1 formulated by my learned Predecessor loses its importance. 10. The learned counsel for the defendant would pyramid his argument, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: Absolutely there is no iota or shred, shard or miniscule extent of averment in the plaint that the defendant/Chinnaraj is Kannan and that Chinnaraj in the name of Kannan allegedly executed Ex.A1. In the absence of such an averment and also in the absence of any specific finding by both the fora below, they were not justified in holding that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff and that she was entitled to injunction. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit, that in the proof affidavit there is a clear averment of the aforesaid fact and both parties contested the matter understanding the real issue involved in this case. 12. No doubt some of the trial Courts are oblivious or unmindful of Order 14 of CPC, which contemplates specifically that if a material fact is affirmed by one and denied by the other, there arises an issue. 12. No doubt some of the trial Courts are oblivious or unmindful of Order 14 of CPC, which contemplates specifically that if a material fact is affirmed by one and denied by the other, there arises an issue. The trial Court is expected to frame issues accordingly, on perusal of the pleadings, so to say, the plaint and the written statement and in certain cases even after taking evidence for that purpose. But more often than not, the said rule is followed more in its breach than in its adherence. It has to be seen as to whether non framing of an issue strictly in accordance with Order 14 of CPC caused prejudice to the party concerned in understanding the real controversy in the suit and in adducing evidence on his side. Once it is found that both the contesting parties understood what actually was the dispute involved, and adduced evidence, then it would be preposterous on the part of the higher fora to reverse the judgment only on such non framing of issue. Here no doubt the suit itself is for injunction and incidentally the title of the respective parties to the suit property could be gone into. Both sides understood in reality the dispute and adduced evidence also. Whereupon, both the Courts below rendered their findings. Hence I am of the considered view that instead of picking holes in the procedures adopted by the Courts below, it is better for this Court to go into the core as well as the kernel of the matter and deal with it. Punctilious of court procedures are not meant for being flouted but the pettifogging procedures should not be allowed to govern the adjudication. Technicalities are only hand maids of justice. With this in mind I would like to analyse the evidence on record. 13. Ex.A1 would display and demonstrate, portray and parody that Kannan executed the sale deed in respect of suit items in favour of the plaintiff Kanthammal. According to the plaintiff, the defendant's mother Rajammal also signed Ex.A1 as a witness. Technicalities are only hand maids of justice. With this in mind I would like to analyse the evidence on record. 13. Ex.A1 would display and demonstrate, portray and parody that Kannan executed the sale deed in respect of suit items in favour of the plaintiff Kanthammal. According to the plaintiff, the defendant's mother Rajammal also signed Ex.A1 as a witness. On the plaintiff's side P.W.2 who signed as one of the attesting witnesses to Ex.A1 deposed in categorical terms that it was the defendant Chinnaraj as Kannan signed the sale deed and it was he who sold the suit properties as per Ex.A1 and both the Courts below believed his evidence along with the evidence of P.W.1 and rendered the judgment after giving their findings on facts. 14. At this juncture, I would like to call up the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012(8) SCC 148 [Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another]; an excerpt from it would run thus: "59. Section 100 CPC provides for a second appeal only on the substantial question of law. Generally, a second appeal does not lie on question of facts or of law. In SBI v. S.N.Goyal (2008) 8 SCC 92 , this Court explained the terms "substantial question of law" and observed as under: (SCC p.103, para 13) "13......The word "substantial" prefixed to 'question of law' does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the parties. 'Substantial questions of law' means not only substantial questions of law of general importance, but also substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties ......any question of law which affects the final decision in a case is a substantial question of law as between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally, having no bearing on the final outcome, will not be a substantial question of law......There cannot, therefore, be a straitjacket definition as to when a substantial question of law arises in a case." (emphasis added) 15. Keeping the aforesaid dictum in mind, I would venture to further analyse the evidence on record. 16. Keeping the aforesaid dictum in mind, I would venture to further analyse the evidence on record. 16. The courts below have not only taken into account the oral evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff as referred to supra, but they also took into account the preponderance of probabilities. Trite as well as dime a dozen proposition of law is that preponderance of probabilities would govern the adjudication in civil cases, that witnesses might lie but the circumstances will not do so. The trial Court placing reliance on Exs.A3 to A9 rendered its finding that ever since the emergence of Ex.A2, it was the plaintiff who had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and there was no smidgeon or miniscule, pint or jot of evidence to prove and establish that the defendant enjoyed the suit properties after the execution and registration of Ex.A1. 17. The learned counsel for the defendant would try to project the case that Exs.A3 to A9 do not refer to the suit property and there is nothing to indicate and exemplify, establish and prove that those revenue records emerged only relating to the suit property. It is a pellucid and palpable fact that revenue records relating to the items 1 and 2 of the suit properties, stand in the name of the plaintiff, for which the defendant would plead in the written statement that patta alone would not confer title. 18. Ex.A13- the adangal extract and Ex.A14-the village statement account would reveal that in the revenue records items 1 and 2 of the property stand in the name of the plaintiff Kanthammal. Taking into account the preponderance of probabilities and the evidence on the plaintiff's side, the Courts below felt that the revenue records bespoke and betokened Kanthammal is the owner in respect of those suit properties. Whereas, there is nothing to indicate and exemplify that ever since 1982 the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. On the defendant's side, no such Adangal extract or any statement account was produced to prove his alleged enjoyment of the suit property. Hence by weighing the evidence of both sides, the Courts below gave concurrent findings on fact that it was the defendant who executed Ex.A1 and the revenue records also buttressed and fortified the stand of the plaintiff. On the defendant's side, no such Adangal extract or any statement account was produced to prove his alleged enjoyment of the suit property. Hence by weighing the evidence of both sides, the Courts below gave concurrent findings on fact that it was the defendant who executed Ex.A1 and the revenue records also buttressed and fortified the stand of the plaintiff. However, the appellate Court after holding so, remarked that no step was taken by the defendant to take the assistance of a handwriting expert to torpedo the stand of the plaintiff that Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would vehemently argue that the appellate Court was not justified in shifting the burden on the defendant and in expecting the defendant to take the assistance of an expert, when in fact, the plaintiff failed to discharge the initial burden cast on her. At this juncture it has to be seen as to whether the appellate Court simply without any evidence available before it, on the plaintiff's side passed such a remark. 20. I recollect the following maxims: (i) Affirmantis est probare[He who affirms must prove] (ii) Affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio: The burden of proof lies upon him who asserts and not upon him who denies. 21. Along with that, I also recollect the following maxim: Favorabiliores rei potius quam actores habentur – Defendants are held to be in a more favourable position than pursuers. 22. Simply because of the aforesaid three sister maxims, the defendant cannot call upon the court to pooh pooh or discard or belittle the oral and documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff in this case. One fact should not be forgotten. The Courts below gave concurrent finding on facts based on oral and documentary evidence and it cannot be stated that the plaintiff did not discharge the initial burden at all. 23. To the risk of repetition and pleonasm, but without being tautologous, I would like to point out that a civil case could be decided on preponderance of probabilities and proof beyond all reasonable doubt is not required as it is required in a criminal case. No doubt the defendant plead that Ex.A10 is a forged and fabricated document. 23. To the risk of repetition and pleonasm, but without being tautologous, I would like to point out that a civil case could be decided on preponderance of probabilities and proof beyond all reasonable doubt is not required as it is required in a criminal case. No doubt the defendant plead that Ex.A10 is a forged and fabricated document. In a criminal case, naturally investigating agency would seek the handwriting and finger print expert's assistance, but a party in a civil case who relies upon a document, could even prove it by adducing evidence even without taking the assistance of a handwriting/finger print experts' evidence. One significant point which strikes me is that as per the Indian Evidence Act, the best evidence available has to be adduced before the Court. No doubt there is concurrent finding on facts. But the first appellate Court itself expected that it would have been better, had steps been taken by the defendant to produce expert's evidence so as to torpoedo and pulverise Ex.A.1 In fact, that opportunity the defendant could have made use of, in the wake of the findings of the trial Court based on oral and documentary evidence. Here, if this Court in Second Appeal places reliance on technicalities then in view of concurrent findings on facts it has to be held that no interference is required; in that eventuality objectivity may be found lacking. The court cannot sacrifice objectivity in rendering justice at the alter of technicalities and procedures. 24. My mind is redolent and reminiscent of the following maxim: It is not enough if justice is done but it should be seen to be done. 25. Keeping that in mind, I am of the considered view that one more opportunity could be given to the defendant to rebut the evidence available on record by taking the assistance of a handwriting/finger print expert. For that purpose, I am inclined to remand the matter back to the first appellate Court for the purpose of taking such additional evidence by sending the disputed document Ex.A1 and the exemplar document Ex.A2, the mortgage deed dated 07.11.1981 and get his opinion and thereafter decide on merits. 26. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the defendant would submit that the question of remanding the matter would not arise. 26. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the defendant would submit that the question of remanding the matter would not arise. I would like to disagree with such a submission for the simple reason that my discussion supra would connote and denote that it not as though both the Courts below without any evidence arrived at the conclusion that plaintiff proved the case. Had there been no evidence at all available on the side of the plaintiff and even then such a finding was rendered by the Courts below, then the matter would be entirely different, and this Court should not give any opportunity to the plaintiff to fill up the lacuna, but my discussion supra would show that this facility of remand is only in the interest of objective justice. In stricto sensu, I am giving opportunity to the defendant to rebut the evidence already adduced on the side of the plaintiff and hence the following decisions: (1) AIR 1965 MADRAS 417 [Balasubramania Iyer v. Subbiah Thevar and another]; (2) AIR 1966 ALLAHABAD 39 [Abdul Sami and another v. Mohammad Noor] (3) 1968 MLJ (II) 546 [Subramanian and another v. Kaliammal and others] cited on the side of the defendant would have no application in the facts and circumstances of this case and no more elaboration in this regard is required. 27. On balance, (1) The first substantial question of law does not arise in view of my discussion set out supra. (2) The second substantial question of law is answered to the effect that the appellate court even though correctly held that the defendant should have taken steps to take the assistance of a handwriting/finger print expert, yet it failed to give suitable direction before deciding the main appeal and hence, opportunity is given to the defendant in that regard. (3) The third substantial question of law is answered to the effect that even though based on mere preponderance of probabilities both the fora below held that it is the defendant Chinnaraj who executed Ex.A1 as Kannan, yet in the absence of getting the assistance of a handwriting expert to prove Ex.A1, this court has decided to give one more opportunity to the defendant to establish his plea. 28. 28. Accordingly the judgment and decree of the first appellate court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first appellate court, with a direction to take additional evidence, by sending Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 the exemplar document, wherein the admitted signature as well as the left thumb impression of the defendant Chinnaraj, is available, for which an Advocate Commissioner shall be appointed : (a) To carry the relevant documents in connection with this case personally in a sealed cover; (b) and produce the same before the Forensic Expert; (c) leave it in his custody under his acknowledgment for as many days as the Forensic Expert may require; (d) collect the record from the Forensic Expert on the day as may be fixed by him; (e) bring it back and lodge it with the Court. The Forensic Expert is directed to complete the examination of the records in any event, within one week after the depositing of the same by the Advocate Commissioner with him. After obtaining such opinion and examining the expert concerned and also hearing objections if any, thereon, it is for the first appellate Court to render its judgment on merits within a period of two months. The cost of taking experts' assistance shall be borne by both sides equally. Both parties shall appear before the first appellate court on 15.07.2013. Accordingly, this second appeal is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.