Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1864 (ALL)

Ram Janam v. Ram Din

2019-08-01

HARSH KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Harsh Kumar, J. 1. The instant second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 8.4.1992 passed by Civil Judge Balia in Civil Appeal No. 181 of 1989 by which appeal was allowed and judgment and decree passed by Trial Court i.e., Additional Munsif-VI, Ballia in Civil Suit No. 575 of 1985 dismissing suit on 15.4.1989 was set aside and plaintiff's suit for cancellation of sale-deed was decreed. Feeling aggrieved the defendant has preferred this second appeal which has been admitted vide order dated 10.12.2003 on following two substantial questions of law: E. Whether the Lower Appellate Court who himself compared the thumb impression, ignoring the expert opinion is justified? G. Whether the provisions of section 71 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have been followed by the Lower Appellate Court, if not, its effect? 2. The brief facts relating to the case are that plaintiff respondent Ram Din filed Civil Suit No. 575 of 1985 in the Court of Munsif Ballia (West) seeking relief for cancellation of sale-deed dated 20.5.1985, allegedly executed by Ram Din in favour of Ram Janam, in respect of the land, detailed at the foot of plaint viz., plot No. 500-A area 0.14 acre, 500-B area 0.46 acre and 491 area 0.34 acre, total three plots area 0.94 acres, which is registered in Bahi No. 1st Zild 945 page 60 at Sl. No. 2066 on 3.6.1985. It was contended that land in question situate in Village Chachia Pargana Sikardarpur Garwi District Ballia of which plaintiff is bhumidar in possession with transferable rights and defendant has no right, title or possession, over the same but when the plaintiff was sowing paddy in his fields, defendant Ram Janam disclosed that he has obtained from him a sale-deed of his land, which appears to have been obtained by impersonation of someone else in place of plaintiff as plaintiff never visited office of Sub-Registrar for execution of deed. That plaintiff Ram Din neither executed the impugned sale-deed nor presented the same for registration before Sub-Registrar nor received any sale consideration of Rs. 16,000/- which is shown to have been paid under the impugned sale-deed and is inadequate also; that plaintiff is still in possession over the land in suit. 3. That plaintiff Ram Din neither executed the impugned sale-deed nor presented the same for registration before Sub-Registrar nor received any sale consideration of Rs. 16,000/- which is shown to have been paid under the impugned sale-deed and is inadequate also; that plaintiff is still in possession over the land in suit. 3. The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations of plaint and contended that it is wrong to say that sale-deed has been obtained through impostor rather the same was executed on payment of valuable, valid and adequate sale consideration and has been executed in good faith. 4. On parties pleadings Trial Court framed as many as four issues viz., (1) Whether sale-deed in question is liable to be cancelled for the reasons given in plaint? (2) Whether suit is barred by provisions of section 41 of Transfer of Property Act? (3) Whether suit is barred by provisions of estoppel and acquiescence? (4) Relief. 5. The plaintiff filed copy of impugned sale-deed and extract of Khatauni as well as enlarged photographs, negatives of disputed and specimen thumb impressions of plaintiff Ram Din and report of handwriting and finger print expert and produced himself as P.W. 1, one Ram Janam son of Hira as P.W. 2, finger print and hand writing expert Niranjan Lal Srivastava as P.W. 3 and Jagat Kumar Srivastava, photographer as P.W. 4. The defendant filed enlarged photographs, negatives of disputed and specimen thumb impressions of plaintiff Ram Din, report of finger print and handwriting expert and copy of question answer seeking information and produced Rajeev Ranjan Srivastava finger print and handwriting expert as D.W. 1, Ram Janam defendant himself as D.W. 2, Jagat Kumar Srivastava, photographer as D.W. 3 and Ram Badan/Bachan as D.W. 4. 6. 6. The Trial Court in its discussions on issue No. 1 observed that finger print and handwriting experts of plaintiff and defendant have given report respectively favoring them and since experts engaged by each party usually gives report in favour of the same party, hence considering other aspects it held that (i) contention of sale consideration being inadequate may not be accepted (ii) since according to paper No. 54(c), the requirement of affixing photo of vendor on sale-deed came into effect w.e.f. 21.5.1985, so for not affixing photo on sale-deed dated 20.5.1985 the same may not be cancelled (iii) since name of defendant has been mutated in revenue records and the plaintiff has not sought any relief of possession so suit is not maintainable and (iv) Jang Bahadur marginal witness of sale-deed was not produced so adverse inference had to be drawn against plaintiff. Consequently issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiff and deciding other two issues in negative, the suit was dismissed with costs. 7. Against the judgment and decree of Trial Court plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 181 of 1989 before District Judge, Ballia which was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge for disposal and the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree allowed the appeal with costs, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and decreed the suit of plaintiff for cancellation of sale-deed with costs. 8. The Lower Appellate Court in agreement with the findings of Trial Court that reports of two experts favoring plaintiff and defendant respectively, are contradictory to each other held that in the circumstances the Trial Court ought to have examined the disputed thumb impressions over the impugned sale-deed/Register Form No. 8 and the specimen thumb impressions of plaintiff on record, at its own but has committed error in not doing so. The Appellate Court has himself considered the two reports of handwriting and finger print experts and also examined and compared two thumb impressions (disputed and specimen) and upon such examination reached to the conclusion that both thumb impressions are different and are not the thumb impressions of one and the same person. Consequently it came to the conclusion that thumb impressions over the impugned sale-deed do not belong to plaintiff Ram Din and allowed appeal setting aside impugned judgment and decree and restoring the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court. 9. Consequently it came to the conclusion that thumb impressions over the impugned sale-deed do not belong to plaintiff Ram Din and allowed appeal setting aside impugned judgment and decree and restoring the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court. 9. Heard Shri P.K.S. Paliwal learned Counsel for defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred as defendant) and Shri Devendra Pratap Yadav learned Counsel for plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs) and perused the record as well as Lower Court record summoned in the appeal. 10. The learned Counsel for defendant submits that learned Lower Appellate Court acted wrongly and illegally in examining and comparing the disputed thumb impressions over impugned sale-deed with the specimen thumb impressions of plaintiff on record. Relying on the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh and another, AIR 1992 SC 2100 he referred to para No. 32 of above judgment wherein the Apex Court has given a caution against venturing an opinion on mere comparison of specimen/admitted writings is being reproduced as under: "32. It was then submitted, relying on section 73 of the Evidence Act, that we should compare the disputed material with the specimen/admitted material on record and reach our own conclusion. There is no doubt that the said provision empowers the Court to see for itself whether on a comparison of the two sets of writing/signature, it can safely be concluded with the assistance of the expert opinion that the disputed writings are in the handwriting of the accused as alleged. For this purpose we were shown the enlarged copies of the two sets of writings but we are afraid we did not consider it advisable to venture a conclusion based on such comparison having regard to the state of evidence on record in regard to the specimen/admitted writings of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. Although the section specifically empowers the Court to compare the disputed writings with the specimen/admitted writings shown to be genuine, prudence demands that the Court should be extremely slow in venturing an opinion on the basis of mere comparison, more so, when the quality of evidence in respect of specimen/admitted writings is not of high standard. We have already pointed out the state of evidence as regards the specimen/admitted writings earlier and we think it would be dangerous to stake any opinion on the basis of mere comparison. We have already pointed out the state of evidence as regards the specimen/admitted writings earlier and we think it would be dangerous to stake any opinion on the basis of mere comparison. We have, therefore, refrained from basing our conclusion by comparing the disputed writings with the specimen/admitted writings." 11. The learned Counsel for appellant further contended that the Lower Appellate Court was not justified in examining and comparing the two thumb impressions and in displacing the decision given by Trial Court, mere on the basis of such comparison without setting aside findings of Trial Court on issue No. 1; that appeal is liable to be allowed and setting aside judgment and decree of Lower Appellate Court, judgment and decree passed by Trial Court are liable to be restored dismissing suit of plaintiff with costs. 12. Per contra learned Counsel for plaintiff-respondent supported the impugned judgment and decree and contended that the plaintiff never executed the impugned sale-deed and since it does not bear his thumb impression and has been obtained through impersonation, the same is null and void and is liable to be cancelled; that report of finger print and handwriting expert is relevant but its evidentiary value is of an opinion and the opinion of expert is not binding upon the Courts; that Niranjan Lal Srivastava was the senior finger and handwriting expert and his report is based on correct analysation of disputed thumb impressions of plaintiff over the impugned sale-deed and his specimen thumb impressions taken in Court, while the report of Rajeev Ranjan Srivastava was based on incorrect analysis of enlarged photographs, so in the circumstances the Lower Appellate Court acted rightly in accordance with law in comparing the two thumb impressions at its own and it has given detailed reasons of analysis in respect of Delta, pattern, core, intervening ridges etc; that the comparison of handwriting and signatures involves more complications as to characteristics of writer viz., pen pressure, speed, pen pause, position of hand and finger etc. unlike the comparison of thumb impressions which is scientific in nature; that the signatures or writings by two persons may have same pictorial effect and it is difficult to analyze the forgery, if any, but in case of thumb impressions, since thumb impressions of two persons may not be same with regard to Delta with gap and number of ridges upto core etc there are less chances of mistake; that since the sale-deed in question was not executed by plaintiff so other aspects as discussed by Trial Court were not relevant; that plaintiff had only mentioned that there was no reason for executing sale-deed by him for inadequate consideration of mere Rs. 16,000/- but if above ground may not be good for cancellation of sale-deed it may not be inferred that execution of sale-deed was admitted to plaintiff; that plaintiff was not required to produce Jang Bahadur, the alleged marginal witness of sale-deed rather for not producing him, adverse inference ought to have been drawn against defendant; that the appeal has been filed with absolutely false and baseless allegations without any substantial question of law involved for consideration and is liable to be dismissed with costs throughout. 13. It is pertinent to mention that documents of "C category viz., copies of sale-deed, extract of khatauni, photos and reports of experts etc. are not on Lower Court record and are reported to have been weeded out after stipulated period and decision in first appeal. 14. The plaintiff has filed Civil Suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 20.5.1985 seeking its cancellation on the grounds : (i) he did neither visit office of Sub-Registrar nor executed impugned sale-deed, which has been obtained by impersonation of some other person in his place, (ii) Jang Bahadur did not sign impugned sale-deed as marginal witness, (iii) no consideration was paid to plaintiff by defendant and in any case sale consideration of Rs. 16,000/- was inadequate, (iv) as per rules affixation of photo of vendor was necessary and the same was not affixed as it was obtained by impersonation, and (v) plaintiff is in actual physical possession over the property in suit. 15. 16,000/- was inadequate, (iv) as per rules affixation of photo of vendor was necessary and the same was not affixed as it was obtained by impersonation, and (v) plaintiff is in actual physical possession over the property in suit. 15. The Trial Court finding that the reports of two fingerprint and handwriting experts in contradiction with each other, each one in favour of plaintiff and defendant respectively, left to decide this point in issue about existence of thumb impressions of plaintiff over impugned sale-deed, though it was main point of dispute to be decided for just and appropriate decision of the suit. The other grounds were ancillary in nature, rather were circumstances belying execution of impugned sale-deed and Trial Court acted wrongly, illegally and perversely in deciding issue No. 1 in negative upon consideration of other aspects of : (i) affixation of photo being not required under rules, (ii) inadequacy of consideration (of just Rs. 16,000/- for purchasing huge land of 0.94 acres) being not valid ground for cancellation of sale-deed, (iii) for not seeking relief of possession, and (iv) for not producing Jang Bahadur the marginal witness of sale-deed, by plaintiff. 16. For consideration of substantial question of law No. 1 provisions of section 45 of Indian Evidence Act are being reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "Section 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 [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. Illustrations." 17. The standard of proof in criminal cases is different to some extent from that required in civil cases. In criminal cases entire evidence is to be looked into with the presumption of innocence of accused and Courts are required to be cautious in relying or not over the expert opinion including medical expert report, if it is in contradiction with ocular or other evidence of facts. In criminal cases entire evidence is to be looked into with the presumption of innocence of accused and Courts are required to be cautious in relying or not over the expert opinion including medical expert report, if it is in contradiction with ocular or other evidence of facts. In criminal cases since liberty of a person (who is presumed to be innocent) is involved and Courts are required to go slow, in relying on mere comparison and may safely be advised to decide case, ignoring such expert opinion, so as to avoid possibility of conviction of an innocent person/accused, as there is requirement of proof of guilt of accused to the hilt, beyond any shadow of doubt and in case of any shadow of doubt accused is entitled to be acquitted giving him benefit of doubt. The decision of case in AIR 1992 SC 2100 (supra) relates to criminal trial and has no application to this case. 18. With a difference, in civil cases there is no concept of benefit of doubt to either party and each party is required to prove its case. In such cases proof or disproof of a document may be decided upon evidence adduced with the aid of expert opinion of handwriting and finger print expert (based on expert knowledge of the science of finger and handwriting expert) upon examination of disputed signature, writing or thumb impressions of a person, having been compared with his specimen or admitted signature, writing or thumb impressions. In such cases when two conflicting opinions are brought before the Court in the shape of reports of two different finger print and handwriting experts, produced each by plaintiff and defendant, favoring each of them respectively, it becomes the pious duty of Court to examine and compare itself the disputed thumb impressions/signatures/writings etc. with admitted or specimen thumb impressions etc. as well as enlarged photographs thereof, so as to determine the correctness of expert opinion/report given by any of the two handwriting and finger print experts, and deciding the truth of the fact. 19. In civil cases courts may not be justified in resiling from its duty of such examination/comparison by itself by leaving the issue of proof of thumb impressions over any document (which may be basis of case) undecided. 19. In civil cases courts may not be justified in resiling from its duty of such examination/comparison by itself by leaving the issue of proof of thumb impressions over any document (which may be basis of case) undecided. In a suit for cancellation of sale-deed where there is specific denial of execution of impugned sale-deed and specific averment that impugned sale-deed having been obtained by impersonating some other person in place of plaintiff, the Court may not be justified in proceeding with disposal of case, either by decreeing or dismissing the case, without recording any specific finding regarding thumb impressions impugned sale-deed bears signature/thumb impressions of plaintiff, if it rules out possibility of execution by imposter and in case it does not bear signature/thumb impressions of plaintiff, (confirming execution by imposter in place of plaintiff). 20. In the case of Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263 ., the Apex Court held that: "The purpose of an expert opinion is primarily to assist the Court in arriving at a final conclusion. Such report is not binding upon the Court. If eyewitnesses' evidence and other prosecution evidence are trustworthy, have credence and are consistent with the eye version given by the eye-witnesses, the Court will be well within its jurisdiction to discard the expert opinion. The Courts, normally, look at expert evidence with a greater sense of acceptability, but it is equally true that the Courts are not absolutely guided by the report of the experts, especially if such reports are perfunctory, unsustainable and are the result of a deliberate attempt to misdirect the prosecution. The essential principle governing expert evidence is that the expert is not only to provide reasons to support his opinion but the result should be directly demonstrable. The Court is not to surrender its own judgment to that of the expert or delegate its authority to a third party, but should assess his evidence like any other evidence." In paragraph 40 of judgment the Apex Court has observed: "We really need not reiterate various judgments which have taken the view that the purpose of an expert opinion is primarily to assist the Court in arriving at a final conclusion. Such report is not binding upon the Court. Such report is not binding upon the Court. The Court is expected to analyse the report, read it in conjunction with the other evidence on record and then form its final opinion as to whether such report is worthy of reliance or not. Just to illustrate this point of view, in a given case, there may be two diametrically contradictory opinions of handwriting experts and both the opinions may be well reasoned. In such case, the Court has to critically examine the basis, reasoning, approach and experience of the expert to come to a conclusion as to which of the two reports can be safely relied upon by the Court. The assistance and value of expert opinion is indisputable, but there can be reports which are, ex facie, incorrect or deliberately so distorted as to render the entire prosecution case unbelievable." 21. As per rule the office of Sub-Registrar maintain several registers in ordinary course of its business/day-to-day working and at the time of execution and registration of only sale-deed, apart from signatures office also use to obtain left thumb impressions of executants on documents as well as on a register known as "Register Form No. 8 or NAMOONA No. 8" kept in the office. 22. It is noteworthy that: (i) The original of impugned sale-deed was not filed by defendant in Courts below and no reason was assigned for not producing the same. 22. It is noteworthy that: (i) The original of impugned sale-deed was not filed by defendant in Courts below and no reason was assigned for not producing the same. (ii) Out of two reports of finger print and handwriting experts on record, one by Sri Niranjan Lal Srivastava for plaintiff states that two thumb impressions (disputed and specimen) are not identical and do not tally with each other and may not be of one and the same person, but to the contrary, another report by Sri Rajiv Ranjan Srivastava for defendant with contrary opinion states that both thumb impressions are identical and tally with each other.' (iii) None of the above two experts are qualified experts of the "science of finger prints and handwriting" and none of them is alleged to have acquired special knowledge of subject, by obtaining any degree or diploma in the course of "science of handwriting and finger prints" rather both the experts have stated that they acquired knowledge under training with some other finger print and handwriting expert and are working independently as finger print and handwriting expert, (a) Niranjan Lal Srivastava expert of plaintiff since 1972, and (b) Rajiv Ranjan Srivastava expert of defendant since 1977. (iv) The photos of disputed and specimen thumb impressions (D-1 and S-1) were not taken by any of above two experts, rather each of them prepared reports upon examination of photos taken, prepared and provided to each of them by one Jagat Prasad photographer, who has been produced one, as P.W. 4 and again as D.W. 3. (v) The Trial Court finding two reports of experts unworthy of reliance, ignored them and without deciding the main issue, as to whether impugned sale-deed bears thumb impressions of plaintiff or not, decided issue No. 1, in negative is absolutely wrong, illegal, incorrect and perverse manner. 23. It is pertinent to mention that main ground for cancellation of sale-deed was that it is null and void as was not executed by plaintiff and has been obtained by impersonation of some other person in his place and other grounds of inadequacy of sale consideration (of just Rs. 16,000/- for huge land of 0.94 acres), non affixation of photo etc. were mentioned as ancillary circumstances to rule out possibility of execution of sale-deed by him. 16,000/- for huge land of 0.94 acres), non affixation of photo etc. were mentioned as ancillary circumstances to rule out possibility of execution of sale-deed by him. In such a suit for cancellation of sale-deed on ground of denial of execution with specific plea that plaintiff never visited office of Sub-Registrar for execution, never executed impugned sale-deed and that it has been obtained by impersonation of some other person in place of plaintiff, if the Court comes to the conclusion that impugned sale-deed bears thumb impression or signatures of vendor i.e., plaintiff, the sale-deed may not be cancelled and suit is bound to be dismissed and on the other hand if the Court comes to the conclusion that impugned sale-deed does not bear signatures/thumb impressions of vendor i.e., plaintiff, it will be suffice to hold that the same has been obtained through impostor in which case sale-deed may not stand irrespective of the fact that other circumstances/grounds are proved or not (as they loose their relevancy) and suit is bound to be decreed as such a sale-deed is null and void-ab-intio. In such a case the Court if finds that impugned sale-deed does not bear thumb impressions/signatures of plaintiff, the alleged vendor, it may not be justified in refusing to pass a decree for cancellation of sale-deed under any imagination even if other ancillary grounds/circumstances of inadequacy of consideration etc. were not proved. The Trial Court acted wrongly, illegally and perversely in deciding issue No. 1 in negative and dismissing the suit without deciding the issue of thumb impressions of plaintiff over the impugned sale-deed and without holding that impugned sale-deed bears thumb impressions of plaintiff. 24. The Lower Appellate Court has examined and compared the disputed left thumb impression of plaintiff over Register NAMOONA (Form) No. 8 (hereinafter referred to as D-1) and his specimen LTI taken in Court (hereinafter referred as S-1) and upon analysation of various characteristics has narrated in detail the several points of differences between the two thumb impressions (D-1 and S-1) in more than two pages of impugned judgment with respect to position of Delta, pattern of loop, space between ridges, direction of ridges, gap between Delta, core and ridges etc. and upon such detailed comparison upon finding the opinion given in report of finger print and handwriting expert Shri Niranjan Lal Srivastava P.W. 3 to be based on correct and cogent reasonings has found it reliable and accepted it, while finding the opinion given in report submitted by Rajiv Ranjan Srivastava expert of defendant to be incorrect and unreliable has discarded the same. Admittedly the disputed thumb impression marked by D-1 do also not tally with specimen right thumb impression of plaintiff marked by S-2. 25. The Lower Appellate Court has very rightly discussed the entire evidence on record and the opinion given in reports of two fingerprint and handwriting experts and compared the two thumb impressions analyzing the characteristics as mentioned earlier. Since the Lower Appellate Court upon examination of two thumb impressions has come to a definite conclusion that disputed thumb impression D-1 of vendor of impugned sale-deed on Register NAMOONA (Form) No. 8, relating to impugned sale-deed, mentioned above did not tally with specimen left thumb impression S-1 of plaintiff, so under any imagination the impugned sale-deed may not be considered to be either bearing his thumb impressions or to having been executed by plaintiff, rather clearly indicates/proves that it was obtained by impersonating some other person in place of plaintiff as per plaintiff's specific case in plaint. 26. It is pertinent to mention that since the impugned sale-deed was found to be not bearing thumb impression of plaintiff over it, the other ancillary grounds/circumstances, loose their relevancy. It is also pertinent to mention that appellant has failed to show any incorrectness in the comparison so made with regard to various characteristics of two thumb impressions by Lower Appellate Court. 27. The Lower Appellate Court has committed no mistake in disagreeing with findings of Trial Court on issue No. 1 and in allowing appeal by setting aside the wrong, illegal and perverse judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 28. The substantial question of law No. 1 is accordingly decided in affirmative against the appellant in favour of respondent. 29. As far as substantial question of law No. 2 is concerned, section 71 of Evidence Act is being reproduced hereunder: "Section 71. Proof when attesting witness denies the execution - If the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence." 30. 29. As far as substantial question of law No. 2 is concerned, section 71 of Evidence Act is being reproduced hereunder: "Section 71. Proof when attesting witness denies the execution - If the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence." 30. The "Burden of Proof" means burden to prove some positive allegations and there can be no burden to prove something negative or to disprove any fact or allegation. The learned Counsel for appellant has failed to place any legal provision under which marginal witness of impugned sale-deed (in favour of defendant) could be required to be produced by plaintiff in order to disprove the same and adverse inference if at all may be drawn against him for not producing marginal witness Jang Bahadur. To the contrary "Burden of Proof" to prove impugned sale-deed, in his favour lies on defendant. He was required to prove it by producing marginal witnesses and since he has failed to produce any of the 2 marginal witnesses of impugned sale-deed, adverse inference was required to be drawn against him to the effect that had the marginal witnesses been produced to witness box they would have denied execution of impugned sale-deed as well as payment of consideration. In any case he could have adduced other evidence to prove impugned sale-deed, in view of provisions of section 71 of Indian Evidence Act which has not been done by him. 31. The Trial Court acted wrongly, illegally and perversely in drawing adverse inference against plaintiff for not producing Jang Bahadur, marginal witness of impugned sale-deed. The Appellate Court has very rightly held that defendant has neither produced original sale-deed nor produced any of the two marginal witness, nor produced any other evidence in order to prove execution of impugned sale-deed as well as to prove payment of sale consideration, so adverse inference ought to have been drawn against defendant and not the plaintiff. The provisions of section 71 of Indian Evidence Act nowhere required the plaintiff to produce marginal witness of sale-deed for disproving the same rather since burden to prove execution of impugned sale-deed by plaintiff was on defendant, in view of provisions of section 71 of Indian Evidence (sic), the defendant had to produce marginal witness of sale-deed or to produce some other evidence to which he failed. 32. 32. It is settled principle of law that entries in revenue records are not proof of title and possession and the possession goes with title. In the case of Ram Lal v. Phagna, 2006 (1) SCC 168 the Apex Court held. "Mere mutation of name in revenue records does not create any right, title or interest in absence of any real transaction". 33. The plaintiff claims that he never visited office of Sub-Registrar and never transferred the suit land by executing impugned sale-deed, which has been obtained through impostor and has denied delivery of possession to defendant. He has stated on oath that he is in actual physical possession over the land in suit. Hence merely on account of mutation entries obtained by defendant in revenue records, in absence of any other cogent evidence of his being in actual physical possession over land in suit, the suit may not be considered to be bad for not seeking relief of possession. The Trial Court was wrong and incorrect in holding the suit not maintainable merely in view of mutation entries of defendant and perverse findings on issue No. 1, without there being any conclusive proof of possession of defendant over the land in suit. 34. Substantial question of law No. 2 is accordingly decided in affirmative against the appellant in favour of plaintiff-respondent. 35. In view of the discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that Lower Appellate Court did not commit any illegality or mistake in comparing the disputed thumb impressions with specimen, thumb impressions of plaintiff at its own. The findings of Lower Appellate Court are not based on mere comparison rather it has followed the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, it has found the opinion given in report of expert Niranjan Lal Srivastava P.W. 3 to be correct and conflicting opinion given in report of expert Rajeev Ranjan Srivastava D.W. 1 to be incorrect. The Lower Appellate Court has not committed any error of law in reference with following the provisions of section 71 of Indian Evidence Act. 36. The two substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are, therefore, decided in affirmative against defendant-appellant and in favour of plaintiff-respondent. No other substantial question of law was raised or arises in the appeal. The Lower Appellate Court has not committed any error of law in reference with following the provisions of section 71 of Indian Evidence Act. 36. The two substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are, therefore, decided in affirmative against defendant-appellant and in favour of plaintiff-respondent. No other substantial question of law was raised or arises in the appeal. The appeal is devoid of merits and there is no sufficient ground for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court or for restoring the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 37. The appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs. 38. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs throughout, the impugned judgment and decree are affirmed. 39. Let the Lower Court record be sent back to the Court below alongwith copy of this judgment for necessary compliance after preparation of decree.