JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The plaintiff is the appellant, who aggrieved by the judgment of reversal passed by the learned first appellate Court, has filed the instant second regular appeal. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the ''plaintiff'' and ''defendants''. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of land measuring 1-1 bighas comprising Khasra No.599, Khata Khatauni No.105/118 and land measuring 7-19 bighas which is 1/3rd share of the total land measuring 23-17 bighas comprising Khasra Nos. 635 and 637, Khata Khatauni No.104/117, situated in Village Dangar, Pargana Ajmerpur,Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (for short ''suit land'') which was recorded in the name of deceased Sartaju. He further sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants permanently from interfering in the suit land. It was averred that the suit land was previously owned and possessed by one Sartaju, who had two daughters i.e. defendants No.1 and 2, who have been married and are residing in their husband''s house at Villages Gahar and Pater, respectively. It was further averred that the plaintiff had been looking after Sartaju for the last many years and there was no litigation pending between Sartaju and her daughters. Sartaju executed a valid Will on 19.12.1988 in favour of the plaintiff and she expired in the month of January, 1989 and now the plaintiff has inherited the suit property on the basis of the Will and has become its owner in possession. It was also averred that defendants No.1 and 2 in order to harass the plaintiff filed a false complaint in the police, who in connivance with defendants No.1 and 2 took the Will in their possession and are now compelling the plaintiff to relinquish the suit land in favour of defendants. Plaintiff also averred that Sartaju had also executed a Will prior to the aforesaid Will in his favour of the suit property to the extent of share, hence, the suit. 4. Defendants No.1 and 2 contested the suit by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections qua maintainability, estoppel, locus-standi, cause of action and valuation, were taken. On merits, it was admitted that the suit land was previously owned and possessed by Sartaju and she had two daughters i.e. defendants No.1 and 2, but denied that the plaintiff had been looking after Sartaju. On merits, it was admitted that the suit land was previously owned and possessed by Sartaju and she had two daughters i.e. defendants No.1 and 2, but denied that the plaintiff had been looking after Sartaju. It was averred that the defendants, who are daughters of Sartaju, had been looking after her till her death and it was also denied that there was any litigation between defendants No.1 and 2 and Sartaju. Defendants No.1 and 2 denied that Sartaju had executed a valid Will in favour of the plaintiff, but stated that at the time of mutation of the suit land, the plaintiff presented one false Will dated 19.12.1988 which was taken into possession by the police and a case under Section 420 IPC was registered through the Court of SDJM, Ghumarwin and sent for inquiry. It was also averred that mutation of the suit land had been attested in favour of defendants No.1 and 2, who are legal heirs of deceased Sartaju, on 19.01.1990. Defendants No.1 and 2 further averred that now they are owners in possession of the suit land and denied that the plaintiff has any right, title and interest in the suit land. Lastly, it was denied that any Will was executed in favour of the plaintiff by Sartaju of share in the suit land. 5. Plaintiff filed replication whereby it was stated that the order of A.C. IInd Grade, who had not taken into consideration the Will, executed by Sartaju, is illegal, wrong and void vide which the mutation of the suit land had been attested in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. Rest of the averments contained in the plaint were reasserted and those of the written statement were refuted. 6. On 25.11.1991, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- "1. Whether Smt. Sartaju executed a valid Will dated 19.12.1988 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether Smt. Sartaju has also executed a valid Will prior to the aforesaid Will in favour of the plaintiff with regard to share of her property. If so, to what effect? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable and plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his acts and conducts? OPD. 6. If so, to what effect? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable and plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his acts and conducts? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 7. Whether the proper court fee has not been affixed on the plaint? OPD. 8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is defective and self contradictory. If so, to what effect? OPD. 9. Whether the order of A.C. IInd Grade is wrong, illegal, null and void? OPP. 10. Relief." 7. After recording evidence and evaluating the same, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court on 02.03.1996. However, on an appeal having been preferred before the learned first appellate Court, the said judgment and decree came to be set aside on 23.02.2004, constraining the plaintiff to file the instant appeal, which was admitted on 06.08.2004 on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether the report of the handwriting expert could be read in evidence in the present case without formal proof thereof? 2. Whether there has been complete misreading and misappreciation of the evidence by the learned first Appellate Court?" 8. In order to maintain clarity, it would be necessary to first answer substantial question of law No.2 and thereafter substantial question of law No.1. Question No.2. 9. The learned first appellate Court has held the Will dated 19.12.1988 Ex. PW3/A to be shrouded by suspicious circumstances on the following grounds: (i) That the age of Smt. Sartaju in both the Wills was shown as 70 years. (ii) Admittedly, due to old age and ailment, the mental faculties of Smt. Sartaju had been considerably impaired, therefore, she could not have executed the Will, more especially, when she was died within 15 days after execution thereof. (iii) Since the earlier Will Ex.PW6/A was registered, therefore, subsequent Will Ex.PW3/A being un-registered could not be relied upon. (iv) There was active participation of the beneficiary in the execution of the Will. (v) There was a criminal case pending against the plaintiff in which the police had submitted the final report. (vi) As per the opinion of the Director, Finger Print Bureau, the thumb impressions on the Will Ex. PW6/A did not match with the thumb impressions of the executant Sartaju with latter Will Ex.PW3/A. 10. (v) There was a criminal case pending against the plaintiff in which the police had submitted the final report. (vi) As per the opinion of the Director, Finger Print Bureau, the thumb impressions on the Will Ex. PW6/A did not match with the thumb impressions of the executant Sartaju with latter Will Ex.PW3/A. 10. In order to appreciate and come to a conclusion as to whether there are in fact suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, it would be necessary to look into the evidence that has come on record. 11. In order to prove the Will, the plaintiff while appearing as PW-2 asserted that husband of Sartaju had died in the year 1973 and thereafter he had been looking after Sartaju and the lands belonging to her. He stated that even though Sartaju had two daughters, but they were married and he had performed her last rites. He further stated that relations between Sartaju and her two daughters were not good and, therefore, she on 19.12.1988 executed a Will in his favour which was written by Sh. K.S. Patial, Advocate, in the presence of S/Sh. Vaid Ram and Dila Ram and thereafter the Will was read over and explained to Sartaju, who in presence of the witnesses affixed her thumb impressions on the Will after admitting its contents to be true and the witnesses also signed the Will in the presence of Sartaju. He stated that at the relevant time Sartaju was in sound mind. This witness was cross examined at length, but nothing material could be elicited therefrom. The testimony of the plaintiff has not only been supported, but stands duly corroborated by the testimonies of PW-3,Sh. K.S.Patial, scribe, PW-4 Vaid Ram and Dila Ram another witness (PW5). 12. As noticed above, the learned first appellate Court has gone to the extent of observing that admittedly due to old age and ailment, mental faculties of Sartaju had been considerably impaired. But, it is not understood as to from where the learned first appellate Court had reached on such conclusion or drawn such interference. To the contrary, defendant Judhya Devi while appearing as DW-1 has categorically admitted in her cross examination that Sartaju was mentally sound till her death. 13. But, it is not understood as to from where the learned first appellate Court had reached on such conclusion or drawn such interference. To the contrary, defendant Judhya Devi while appearing as DW-1 has categorically admitted in her cross examination that Sartaju was mentally sound till her death. 13. At this stage, it may also be noted that it was not even the case of the defendants that the Will executed in favour of the plaintiff was shrouded by suspicious circumstance because as per earlier Will Ex.PW6/A half share of the property of Sartaju already stood bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff. 14. The vital aspect of the case that has conveniently been ignored and sidelined by the learned first appellate Court was the ongoing litigation instituted by defendants No.1 and 2 against Sartaju, which eventually came to be dismissed after the death of Sartaju. The defendants/respondents had instituted a suit Ex.P1/1 against their mother Smt. Sartaju wherein serious allegations of fraud were levelled by them against their mother. Thus, obviously, once the relations had been strained to a breaking point between mother and the daughters i.e. Sartaju and defendants No.1 and 2, obviously, in such circumstances, Sartaju would not have in natural and ordinary course executed a Will in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 or even left the property to be succeeded by them, more particularly, when it has come on record that it was the plaintiff, who was looking after Sartaju as well as her property. 15. No doubt, earlier Will Ex.PW6/A was registered but that does not require the subsequent Will Ex. PW3/A should also be registered, more particularly, when a document like a Will is not compulsorily required to be registered. Moreover, why the Will was not registered has been sufficiently explained in the evidence led by the plaintiff and, therefore, mere non-registration of the Will could not in the given facts and circumstances of the case be held to be a suspicious circumstance. 16. As regards the plaintiff being the beneficiary of the Will Ex.PW3/A and having actively participated in its execution, to say the least, there is no evidence whatsoever to support such findings. 16. As regards the plaintiff being the beneficiary of the Will Ex.PW3/A and having actively participated in its execution, to say the least, there is no evidence whatsoever to support such findings. It is not the pleaded case of the defendants that the Will was an outcome of fraud and even if this be so, the pleadings in this regard are wholly deficient and do not meet the requirement of order 6 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads thus:- "4. Particulars to be given where necessary In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with date and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading." 17. It is vehemently argued by Shri K.B.Khajuria, Advocate that the Will otherwise is shrouded by suspicious circumstances as evidently there was a criminal case pending against the plaintiff in which the police had submitted a final report. He further argued that the submission of the final report in itself was a sufficient proof that prima facie a case under Section 420 IPC had been found against the plaintiff that too qua Will Ex. PW3/A. This contention is equally without merit for the simple reason that even though the plaintiff was made to stand trial for the aforesaid offence, but he was ultimately acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate at Ghumarwin and, therefore, no capital can be made out by the defendants on account of mere registration of a criminal case which ultimately has culminated into an order of acquittal. 18. The findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court are totally perverse and, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the judgment and decree rendered by the learned first appellate Court are based upon a complete misreading and mis-appreciation of the evidence. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Question No.1 20. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the judgment and decree rendered by the learned first appellate Court are based upon a complete misreading and mis-appreciation of the evidence. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Question No.1 20. It is vehemently argued by Shri K.B. Khajuria, Advocate that once the Handwriting Director, Finger Print Bureau has found the thumb impression on the Will Ex.PW3/A not to be that of Sartaju on the basis of the thumb impression in the earlier Will dated 15.03.1983 Ex.PW6/A, therefore, the learned trial Court could not have decreed the suit and, therefore, the learned first appellate Court has rightly set aside the judgment and decree so rendered by it. 21. To say the least, the learned first appellate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by relying upon the so called report submitted by the Director, Finger Print Bureau, which in fact was submitted by the police in the case initiated by defendants No.1 and 2 against the plaintiff under Sections 420, 467, 468/120-B IPC. This document is simply a photocopy and not even marked much less exhibited and, therefore, it is not understood as to why and how this document was taken into consideration. 22. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act reads thus:- "45. Opinions of experts.- 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 2 [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 3 [ or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 2 [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts." 23. In view of the language of Section 45, it is necessary that before a person is characterised as an expert, there must be some material on the record to show that he is one, who is skilled in that particular science and is possessed of peculiar knowledge concerning the same. He must have made special study of the subject or acquired special experience therein. 24. As regards the report of Handwriting Expert, the same can be read in evidence only when the Expert is subjected to cross examination. In absence of any such cross examination, the opinion of the Handwriting Expert had to be left out of consideration. He must have made special study of the subject or acquired special experience therein. 24. As regards the report of Handwriting Expert, the same can be read in evidence only when the Expert is subjected to cross examination. In absence of any such cross examination, the opinion of the Handwriting Expert had to be left out of consideration. The substantial question of law is accordingly answered by holding that the report of the Handwriting Expert could not have been read in evidence in the present case without formal proof thereof. 25. In view of the aforesaid answers to both the questions, I find merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court on 23.02.2004 are set aside and that of the learned trial Court passed on 02.03.1996 are restored. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.