JUDGMENT : HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J. 1. Though matter is listed for admission by consent of learned Advocates appearing for both the parties, heard the arguments at admission stage itself substantially and taken up for final disposal. 2. This regular second appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2011 passed in R.A. No. 52/2005 by II Addl. District Judge, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’) which reversed the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2005 passed in O.S. No. 54/1995 by the Addl. Civil Jude (Sr. Dn.) Hospet (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’). 3. The ranks of the parties is as stated before the trial Court for easy reference and convenience. PLAINT: 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property within the jurisdiction of Amaravathi Town Municipality, Amaravathi, as having been purchased through the Registered Sale Deed dated 30.04.1986 for Rs.24,000/- from Y.D. Hulukunta Rao, Tirumala Rao and Y.D. Raghunanda Rao, GPA holder. After purchasing the same, the name of the plaintiff was entered in all the revenue records and the plaintiff is paying tax regularly. The plaintiff has taken the possession of the suit property and constructed up to foundation level, but the plaintiff could not construct the building due to his financial difficulties. Therefore, it has remained till the foundation level. 5. The first defendant’s parents are close friends of plaintiff’s family and defendant No. 1 used to visit plaintiff’s house and earned goodwill. Many a time, plaintiff and first defendant used to discuss family matters also. When this being the fact, first defendant without having no right, title or interest on the suit property has alienated portion of the schedule mentioned property that is area measuring 40 x 60 feet out of total area 60 x 60 feet in favour of defendant No. 2. It is stated that defendant No. 1 is not the owner and not having title over the suit property, but sold to defendant No. 2 through the Registered Sale Deed dated 02.02.1992. Therefore, it is pleaded that the said sale deed dated 02.02.1992 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and no title passes through it to defendant No. 2. Therefore, it is pleaded that the said sale deed dated 02.02.1992 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and no title passes through it to defendant No. 2. Further once again, defendant No. 1 has sold remaining portion of schedule property measuring 20 x 60 feet to defendant No. 2 through the Registered Sale Deed dated 02.03.1992. Therefore, defendant No. 1 has executed two sale deeds in favour of second defendant on different dates. 6. It is pleaded that the plaintiff after learning that first defendant had created fraudulent power of attorney as if executed by the plaintiff and by virtue of the said power of attorney, first defendant had sold the suit schedule property above stated in favour of defendant No. 2. But in fact, the plaintiff has not executed any power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1. Therefore, in this way, defendant No. 1 has cheated the plaintiff by making forged power of attorney. 7. It is further pleaded that second defendant, in turn, alienated the suit property in favour of defendant No. 3 on 24.08.1992, though second defendant had no right, title or interest in the said property. Therefore, the sale deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 as above stated are null and void. Therefore, it is pleaded that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are liable to handover the vacant possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. 8. Further it is pleaded that third defendant has started construction work on the suit property without taking any licence or permission from the competent authority. Therefore, the construction put up by defendant No. 3 on the suit property by making use of construction upto foundation level by the plaintiff is illegal. 9. Therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that first defendant had no title, interest and not owner of the property, but by creating fraudulent power of attorney showing as if executed by the plaintiff and on the basis of said power of attorney had sold the suit property to defendant No. 2 through registered sale deed and in turn, defendant No. 2 has sold the suit property to defendant No. 3. Therefore, these are the fraudulent acts and hence, those sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiff. Therefore, these are the fraudulent acts and hence, those sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiff. Therefore, filed the suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of plaint ‘A’ schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction against defendant Nos.2 and 3 restraining them not to put up any construction on the plaint schedule property and handover the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO. 1: 10. Defendant No. 1 filed the written statement denying all the plaint averments pleaded by the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the vacant site, which is the suit schedule property before selling the same to defendant No. 2. 11. Defendant No. 1 admitted as true that the plaintiff was owner of suit property as having been purchased the suit property through the Registered Sale Deed dated 30.04.1986 for Rs.24,000/- from Y.D. Hulukunta Rao, Tirumala Rao and Y.D. Raghunanda Rao and also name of the plaintiff was carried out in the municipal revenue records. But defendant No. 1 denied that the plaintiff is paying tax regularly and the plaintiff has constructed upto foundation level. Further admitted as true that the parents of first defendant are close friends of plaintiff’s family, but has denied that first defendant made a fraudulent act on the plaintiff as alleged. The first defendant admitted as true that he has sold the property on 02.02.1992 and again on 02.03.1992 in favour of defendant No. 2 being power of attorney holder of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is pleaded that defendant No. 1 has sold the property on the strength of power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 2. Therefore, it is pleaded that the transfer of property made by defendant No. 1 is valid and legal. Hence, the plaintiff is estopped from questioning the said transactions. 12. It is the case pleaded by defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff has executed the power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 voluntary to act on his behalf and defendant No. 1has not created the said power of attorney and there is no difference of opinion between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. It is pleaded that the power of attorney is genuine one. 13. It is pleaded that the power of attorney is genuine one. 13. Defendant No. 1 has admitted that defendant No. 2 in-turn has alienated the said property in favour of defendant No. 3 on the strength of sale deed executed by defendant No. 1. Therefore, the transfer of property made from defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 and then to defendant No. 3 is valid. Therefore, the plaintiff is estopped from claiming property and the plaintiff’s intention is ill motivated just to knock off the property. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO. 2: 14. Defendant No. 2 has filed the written statement by pleading that defendant No. 2 has purchased the suit property to the extent of 40 x 60 feet as defendant No. 1 being the power of attorney holder of plaintiff has executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2. Therefore, further defendant No. 2 had pleaded that defendant No. 2 has sold the suit property in favour of defendant No. 3 through the registered sale deed. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit by contending that there is valid transfer of property. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO. 3: 15. Defendant No. 3 has filed the written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint as false. Defendant No. 3has pleaded in her written statement that the plaintiff in order to knock off the property it is falsely made claim that the defendant No. 1 has created a false story by falsely saying that the plaintiff has executed power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1. It is pleaded that defendant No. 3is the genuine purchaser of the suit property from defendant No. 2 through the Registered Sale Deed. Therefore, the transactions between defendant No. 1 being power of attorney holder of plaintiff made in favour of defendant No. 2 through the registered sale deed and thereafter, transfer of property made by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 are all valid, genuine and legal one. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit. 16. Further pleaded that after purchasing the suit plot property, defendant No. 3 has obtained necessary permission and licence for putting construction and started to construct building on the suit property. 17. Further defendant No. 3 has pleaded that the plaintiff has sold another plot measuring 40 x 60 feet to Mr. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit. 16. Further pleaded that after purchasing the suit plot property, defendant No. 3 has obtained necessary permission and licence for putting construction and started to construct building on the suit property. 17. Further defendant No. 3 has pleaded that the plaintiff has sold another plot measuring 40 x 60 feet to Mr. Ejaj Ahamed who is working as Tahsildar in Bangalore and the said person has also purchased a plot measuring 20 x 60 feet from one of the nephew of defendant No. 1 who is working in KEB, Hospet, to whom defendant No. 1 has sold the said plot under the authority of general power of attorney, but the said persons have not been made as a party though they are necessary party. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is false one. Thus, prays to dismiss the suit. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NOS. 1(a) TO 1(c): 18. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1 died and his legal representatives who are wife and daughters of defendant No. 1 have been appeared on record as defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(c). These defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(c) have filed their written statement denying all the averments and pleadings made in the paint. It is the written statement filed by the legal representatives of defendant No. 1 that they did not know that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. Further they pleaded of ignorance of the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. It is Further pleaded that the legal representatives of defendant No. 1did not know that defendant No. 1has no right, title or interest in the suit property, but admitted that the first defendant has sold the property in favour of defendant No. 2 and in turn, defendant No. 2 has sold the suit property in favour of defendant No. 3 as pleaded by defendant No. 1 in his written statement. Further pleaded that these legal representatives did not know the allegations of plaintiff that defendant No. 1 has created fraudulent general power of attorney. Further they pleaded that defendant No. 2 has sold the property in favour of defendant No. 3. Therefore, defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(c) being legal representatives of defendant No. 1 prays to dismiss the suit. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIAL COURT: 19. Further they pleaded that defendant No. 2 has sold the property in favour of defendant No. 3. Therefore, defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(c) being legal representatives of defendant No. 1 prays to dismiss the suit. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIAL COURT: 19. Based on the pleadings of the parties in the suit, the trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit sale deeds in favour of the second defendant by the first defendant are without any level authority and as such, they are invalid, illegal and void and as such, are not binding on the plaintiff? 2. Whether plaintiff further proves that the alleged Power of Attorney in favour of the first defendant in his name is false, fraudulent and illegal? 3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the suit sale deed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant dated 24-8-1982, is also illegal and void and as such not binding on the plaintiff? 4. Whether the alleged construction by the third defendant on the suit property is also unauthorized and illegal? 5. Whether the first defendant proves that his court fee has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the suit of the plaintiff? 6. Whether the second defendant proves that he is the bona-fide purchaser for valid consideration and has sold out the suit property to the third defendant legally? 7. Whether the plaintiff proves his full and absolute title to the suit property? 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction, as prayed for against the defendant No. 3? 9. What order/decree? 20. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, he is examined himself as PW-1 and one witness examined as PW-2 and got marked the documentary evidence as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13(a). On behalf of the defendants, defendant No. 3 is examined as DW-1 and Advocate being minor guardian of defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) is examined as DW-2 and got marked the documentary evidence as Ex.D.1 & Ex.D2. 21. During trial, the trial Court has allowed the application for appointment of expert making verification of signature and thumb impression of defendant No. 1 in making comparison between the admitted signature in vakalath executed by plaintiff and signature on the alleged power of attorney, which is relied on by defendant No. 1. 21. During trial, the trial Court has allowed the application for appointment of expert making verification of signature and thumb impression of defendant No. 1 in making comparison between the admitted signature in vakalath executed by plaintiff and signature on the alleged power of attorney, which is relied on by defendant No. 1. Therefore, the documentary evidence i.e. Ex.C.1-vakalath and Ex.C.1(a) signature in the vakalath are got marked. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT: 22. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record has decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiff has proved that the sale deeds in favour of defendant No. 2 by defendant No. 1 are without any legal authority and as such are invalid, illegal and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Further held that the plaintiff has proved that he has not executed power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 and the said power of attorney is false, fraudulent and illegal. Further it is held that the transfer of property made by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 is also illegal and void and as such, it is not binding on the plaintiff. It is also declared that the construction made by defendant No. 3 on the suit property is unauthorized and illegal on the reason that defendant No. 3 has not produced any documents proving that she has obtained permission or licence from the competent authority. Further it is held that defendant No. 2 is not a bona-fide purchaser of the suit property. 23. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record Ex.P.2-original sale deed came to conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner of the property as defendant No. 1 has also admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the property. Further the trial Court appreciated the evidence on record, which is Ex.P.12-Commissioner Report that the signature found on the alleged power of attorney stated to have been executed by the plaintiff is not that of plaintiff when comparison is made with the admitted signature of plaintiff on the vakalath and on the plaint. Therefore, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not executed power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 and the said power of attorney is false, created and fraudulent one. Therefore, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not executed power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 and the said power of attorney is false, created and fraudulent one. Thus, on these reasons, decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and whatever transactions of transfer of property made by defendant No. 1 through power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 2 and in turn by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 3 are all void transactions. Since defendant No. 1 had no valid title and was not the owner, therefore, declared the said transactions as sham and bogus. Hence, on these reasons, decreed the suit and granted decree of declaration and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. FINDINGS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT: 24. Defendant No. 3 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit property by holding the transaction made by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 and then by defendant Nos.2 and 3 is null and void, therefore preferred regular appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court has assigned reason that the plaintiff has not produced the evidence regarding permission and the licence having been obtained for putting up of construction and the plaintiff has constructed upto foundation level. Therefore, on this reason disbelieved the case of the plaintiff. 25. Further, the First Appellate Court has assigned reason that the alleged power of attorney holder of plaintiff first of all has not proved the signature found in Ex.C-1 (vakalat) and signature found in Ex.P-1 (Special Power of Attorney) that they belong to plaintiff/D. Venka Reddy. Therefore, S-1 to S-12-signatures found in the plaint as per PW-2- fingerprint expert cannot be held that they are admitted signatures of plaintiff. If these signatures are not proved that they are the signatures of plaintiff found in the plaint and vakalat, therefore obtaining expert’s opinion by sending Ex.C-1(a) and Ex.P-1 to compare with S-1 to S-12-signatures, is nothing but severe waste of time and money. If these signatures are not proved that they are the signatures of plaintiff found in the plaint and vakalat, therefore obtaining expert’s opinion by sending Ex.C-1(a) and Ex.P-1 to compare with S-1 to S-12-signatures, is nothing but severe waste of time and money. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has disbelieved Ex.P-12 (Commission Report) and Ex.P-13 (13 Signed Photographs) and held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the signature found on the power of attorney is not that of the plaintiff. 26. Further assigned reason that the power of attorney holder of plaintiff has been examined as PW-1 but he has not examined any of the attesting witnesses to prove that the plaintiff has affixed his signature in their presence at Ex.C-1 (Vakalat) and has affixed signature on the plaint as S-1 to S-12 to establish that they are the admitted signatures of plaintiff to be submitted to the fingerprint experts for comparison. Further assigned reason that the sale deed of the year 1996 was not sent for comparison of signatures to the expert, but the signatures found on the plaint and vakalat of the plaintiff are not that of the plaintiff. Further assigned reason that the plaintiff has not entered into witness box, but his grandson is examined being power of attorney holder. Hence, found fault that the plaintiff ought to have been examined on commission, but did not do so. Further assigned reason that the plaintiff has not made effort in comparing the signature and thumb impression book (Ex.P-11) maintained by the Sub Registrar with Ex.P-2 (Original Sale Deed) are the thumb impression of the plaintiff, which could have been submitted to the Trial Court by keeping the plaintiff present in the Court and could have obtained thumb impression in presence of the parties and Advocates on record for comparison, but not doing so the plaintiff has failed to prove that the alleged Special Power of Attorney is created and concocted one. Further the First Appellate Court has assigned reason that Ex.C-1(a) (Signature) and signatures found in the plaint as S-1 to S-12 are not proved that they are signatures of plaintiff since the grandson of plaintiff has not examined any of the attesting witnesses having seen the plaintiff’s signature on the plaint and in Ex.C-1 (Vakalat). 27. Further the First Appellate Court has assigned reason that Ex.C-1(a) (Signature) and signatures found in the plaint as S-1 to S-12 are not proved that they are signatures of plaintiff since the grandson of plaintiff has not examined any of the attesting witnesses having seen the plaintiff’s signature on the plaint and in Ex.C-1 (Vakalat). 27. Further assigned reason that the specimen signature of the plaintiff was not taken in the Court therefore, mere sending vakalat of the plaintiff stating that it is admitted signature of the plaintiff, is not sufficient to make comparison of signatures. Further the First Appellate Court has stated that the Trial Court has committed illegality in sending the signatures found in Ex.C-1 and S-1 to S-12 for comparison with Ex.C-1(a). Further the First Appellate Court itself has compared LTM found in Ex.P-11 and found in Ex.P-2 with the help of magnifying glasses and found almost similar by taking aid of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 28. Further the First Appellate Court has assigned reason that the PW-1 being power of attorney holder of the plaintiff is not aware of certain facts of the case, therefore, the plaintiff having not been entered into witness box is an act to reject the case of the plaintiff by drawing an inference as per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further assigned reason that the plaintiff has conveniently obtained report from the fingerprint expert in order to sue his case and as such rejected the said report. Further assigned reason that the suit is barred by limitation as per Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and upon accepting the document submitted by defendant No. 2 as additional evidence in the appeal has come to conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is not that by the plaintiff. Therefore, on these reasons allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 29. Being aggrieved by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff has preferred this instant Regular Second Appeal. 30. Though respondents are served, they are not represented by any Advocates, hence, Kumari. Renuka Yelamali, learned Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and also to represent on behalf of respondents herein. 29. Being aggrieved by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff has preferred this instant Regular Second Appeal. 30. Though respondents are served, they are not represented by any Advocates, hence, Kumari. Renuka Yelamali, learned Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and also to represent on behalf of respondents herein. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW: 31. Upon hearing the arguments from both the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the following substantial questions of law arises for my consideration: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the First Appellate Court is justified in substituting expert opinion with his opinion by sitting over the expert opinion just by magnifying glass on the guise of Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act by taking wrong method of comparing signatures? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the First Appellate Court has discharged its function correctly while rejecting/discarding expert opinion report as per law? (iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, what are the factors to be considered in appreciating evidence of expert opinion report in making comparison of signatures on admitted documents and disputed documents and what scientific method has to be adopted? 32. All these substantial questions of law are taken up together for common consideration in order to avoid repetition of facts, circumstances and evidence. 33. Heard arguments from both sides and perused the records. SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF AND AMICUS CURIAE: 34. It is case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is owner of suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 30.04.1986 and his name was mutated in the revenue records. Defendant No. 1 was cordial with the family of plaintiff and the plaintiff being old man having faith in defendant No. 1 used to discuss about the family matters with defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 though having no right, title and interest, whatsoever, on the suit schedule property has alienated portion of the suit schedule property measuring 40 X 60 ft. out of the suit property to defendant No. 2 fraudulently by executing general power of attorney as if showing executed by the plaintiff and by such false and bogus power of attorney defendant No. 1 had sold the property to defendant No. 2. out of the suit property to defendant No. 2 fraudulently by executing general power of attorney as if showing executed by the plaintiff and by such false and bogus power of attorney defendant No. 1 had sold the property to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 in-turn has sold the suit property to defendant No. 3 therefore, it is the case of plaintiff that the plaintiff has never executed any type of power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 and has not authorized defendant No. 1 to execute registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of suit schedule property. Therefore, it is the case of plaintiff that defendant No. 1 by creating forged and fraudulent power of attorney has sold the suit property to defendant No. 2. Thus, the transfer of property made by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 and then by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 3, is without any title and ownership by defendant No. 1. Hence, there is no valid conveyance of title from defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 and as such, filed a suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction. 35. On the other hand, it is the case made out by the defendants that the plaintiff has executed power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 authorizing him to sell the land in favour of defendant No. 2 and in-turn defendant No. 2 has sold the property to defendant No. 3. Therefore, the plaintiff by executing the power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 has authorized him to sell away the suit schedule property and there is valid transfer of title from the plaintiff to defendant No. 2 and then to defendant No. 3 through defendant No. 1, who is power of attorney holder. 36. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has never executed any power of attorney to defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1 has created false and bogus power of attorney and on the basis of said false power of attorney defendant No. 1 has executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 by selling the suit schedule property. 37. 37. By which time the suit had reached the stage of trial during the trial defendant No. 1 died and as such, the original power of attorney could not be produced in the suit during the trial. The burden is on the defendants to produce the said power of attorney before the Court, but have not produced the same. Ex.P-9 is the certified copy of the said power of attorney, hence the comparable document to prove that the signature and thumb impression found on the said power of attorney is not available and the only documents available are Ex.P-11 (thumb impression book) Ex.P-11(a) and Ex.C-1 (vakalat) and signatures S-1 to S-12. Therefore, the plaintiff had got summoned the thumb impression book as Ex.P-11 and signature found therein as Ex.P11(a) were sent for expert opinion. The report submitted by the expert/PW-2 is to the effect that the signature and thumb impression found in Ex.P-11 and Ex.P-11(a) are not that of the person, who has put signature on plaint as S-1 to S-12 and Ex C-1. Therefore, the Trial Court has considered the expert opinion report and came to conclusion that in the alleged power of attorney the plaintiff has not put signature and signature found is created and forged one. Thus, whatever the sale deed made by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 assuming himself as authorized by power of attorney is not established and therefore decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. 38. It is further submitted that, the First Appellate Court without considering all these aspects and more so when PW-2 has given expert opinion report upon examining scientifically thumb impression and signatures, by sitting over the expert opinion without assigning any reasons has discarded the expert evidence assuming itself as an expert and arrived to conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove said power of attorney is false one and therefore, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, which is not correct. It is submitted that when there is expert opinion report to reject the same, then the First Appellate Court would have got more credential evidence to reject the expert opinion report, but only on assuming the role as if the First Appellate Court is an expert and on trivial reason, setting aside the findings of the Trial Court is not correct approach by the First Appellate Court. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and confirm the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 39. Learned Amicus Curiae also argued on behalf of the respondents/defendants and submitted that as per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the First Appellate Court has exercised its power in making comparison of signatures and correctly found that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has not executed power of attorney therefore, justified the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. ANALYSIS - REASONINGS: 40. Defendant No. 1 in his written statement admitted that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property through registered sale deed dated 30.04.1986 from one Y.D. Hulakunte Rao, Tirumala Rao and Raghunath Rao and further admitted as true that the property was transferred in the name of plaintiff in the Municipal records. Ex.P-2 is the original sale deed, which proves that the plaintiff has purchased the property as above stated therefore it is unequivocally proved that the plaintiff is owner of the suit schedule property. This fact is not disputed by defendant No. 1 in the written statement, but has admitted as true that the plaintiff is the owner of suit property as having purchased through registered sale deed dated 30.04.1986 as per Ex.P-2. 41. The crux of the matter involved is that defendant No. 1 has stated that the plaintiff has executed power of attorney authorizing defendant No. 1 to sell the suit property, hence the plaintiff has sold the property in favour of defendant No. 2 authorising the defendant No. 1, but on the contrary, it is the contention of plaintiff that he has not executed power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 authorizing to sell the suit property in favour of defendant No. 2. Therefore, it is the contention of plaintiff that the power of attorney on which defendant No. 1 is relying, is false and bogus document and it is created and concocted one just to dupe the plaintiff. According to defendant No. 1 the said power of attorney is registered one in the Sub Registrar Office, Hospet. The said original power of attorney was not produced by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 died during pendency of the suit. Accordingly, his wife and children were brought on record as defendant Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c). Defendant Nos. 1(b) and 1(c) are the daughters of defendant Nos. 1 and 1(a) and they are represented by defendant No. 1(a) and defendant No. 1(a) remained absent and placed ex-parte. Therefore, the original registered power of attorney is not before the Trial Court. The plaintiff has produced the certified copy of said power of attorney as per Ex.P-9 obtained from the office of the Sub Registrar, Hospet, but from which the signatures made in the power of attorney cannot be compared as it is certified copy obtained through handwriting process as per prevailed Rules at that point of time. 42. Ex.P-9 is the certified copy which is in the written version as there was practice prevailed while issuing certified copy of registered document at that point of time. Further, defendant No. 3 has also not produced the original power of attorney. Defendant No. 2, purchaser of property appeared in the suit but has not filed written statement. Therefore, the plaintiff has got summoned the registration hand book as per Ex.P-11 from the Sub Registrar Office, Hospet as the Ex.P-11 is the thumb impression book. At that point of time, the registration was being done manually during the year 1991 and 1992 on the alleged execution of power of attorney as claimed by defendant No. 1. Therefore, at that particular point of time whoever takes registration of document in the office of the Sub Registrar they used to give thumb impression and signatures. It is the case of plaintiff that he never went to Sub Registrar office and executed power of attorney to defendant No. 1, therefore contended that the signature and thumb impression found in the Ex.P-11 is not that of the plaintiff. This disputed signature in Ex.P-11/thumb impression book is marked as Ex.P-11(a). It is the case of plaintiff that he never went to Sub Registrar office and executed power of attorney to defendant No. 1, therefore contended that the signature and thumb impression found in the Ex.P-11 is not that of the plaintiff. This disputed signature in Ex.P-11/thumb impression book is marked as Ex.P-11(a). The plaintiff is disputing the signature at Ex.P-11(a) that he has not put the signature as Ex.P-11(a) in Ex.P-11/thumb impression book and also the thumb impression found in Ex.P-11/thumb impression book is also not that of the plaintiff. The only recourse available for the plaintiff is disputing his signature and thumb impression by summoning Ex.P-11/thumb impression book because defendant No. 1 and his legal heirs [defendant Nos. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c)] and defendant Nos.2 and 3 have not produced the original power of attorney as claimed by defendant No. 1 stated to have been executed by the plaintiff. 43. When the plaintiff is disputing execution of power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 and summoned Ex.P-11/thumb impression book at the request of plaintiff through an application, the Trial Court has referred the same to expert opinion. For referring admitted signatures of the plaintiff made in the plaint marked as S-1 to S-12, the signature in the thumb impression book is taken and marked as (D) as disputed signature.The admitted signature of plaintiff is found in the vakalat as Ex.C-1(a) and the vakalat executed by the plaintiff is marked as Ex.C-1. Since the plaintiff has affixed signature on the plaint, the signature found in the plaint are taken as admitted signatures of the plaintiff which are marked as S-1 to S-12. The disputed signature (Ex.P-11(a)) found in Ex.P-11/thumb impression book is marked as (D) for making the comparison by the expert. 44. PW-2 is the expert who has given evidence before the Court that she is an handwriting and fingerprint expert and has given report pursuant to reference made by the Court pertaining to the admitted and disputed signatures. The report is marked as Ex.P-12, Ex.P-13 is the 13 sign photographs and Ex.P-13(a) is the negative of 13 sign photographs. 44. PW-2 is the expert who has given evidence before the Court that she is an handwriting and fingerprint expert and has given report pursuant to reference made by the Court pertaining to the admitted and disputed signatures. The report is marked as Ex.P-12, Ex.P-13 is the 13 sign photographs and Ex.P-13(a) is the negative of 13 sign photographs. PW-2 in support of her report Ex.P-12 has stated that she has compared disputed signature as (D) found in Ex.P-11 and Ex.P-11(a) with admitted signature finding place in the plaint as S-1 to S-12 and submitted report as Ex.P-12 and issued a report that the admitted signature finding place in the plaint and disputed signature, which is Ex.P-11(a) in Ex.P-11 are different to each other. 45. Upon considering Ex.P-12/commission report in which she has taken into consideration the facts that the disputed signature is made in the year 1981 and admitted signatures are made in the year 1995, the lapse of time between these admitted and disputed signatures is taken into consideration. In the report the PW-2 has in detail submitted regarding making comparison of signatures between each signature found in the plaint with that of the disputed signatures “D” in Ex.P-11 as Ex.P-11(a) and considering the archetype stroke, body portion, ending stroke starting structure, broad curve, sizes and accordingly, gave opinion report that the disputed signature (D) is not made by the person, who made admitted signature as S-1 to S-12. Therefore, the Trial court by accepting the evidence of PW-2 and Ex.P-12/commission report decreed the suit of the plaintiff and declared that the plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property. 46. The First Appellate Court has set aside the findings of the Trial Court on the reason that the First Appellate Court itself has compared signature as per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with the help of magnifying glass and found almost the disputed signature (D) and admitted signatures as S-1 to S-12 are similar. Therefore, arrived at the conclusion that Ex.P-11(a) in Ex.P-11/thumb impression register is made by the plaintiff and thus, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, arrived at the conclusion that Ex.P-11(a) in Ex.P-11/thumb impression register is made by the plaintiff and thus, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Though the First Appellate Court at paragraph No. 30 of its judgment discussed regarding the purpose of appreciation of fingerprint evidence, but has compared signature itself as per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and came to conclusion that the disputed signature (D) and admitted signatures S-1 to S-12 are similar. Therefore, in this background, the appreciation of evidence made by both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are to be considered in the backdrop of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the scientific method to be adopted by the expert in making comparison of signatures for coming to conclusion regarding the signatures and the background involved in the case as per the pleadings of the plaintiffs and defendants. Evidence led by the plaintiffs and defendants and appreciation of evidence made by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and substantial questions of law above formulated are also to be considered. The Trial Court is not an expert so also the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court has usurped assuming role of expert in making comparison of admitted signatures and disputed signatures. In the above said background, the expert evidence is in detail discussed herein to find out who is correct whether trail court or First Appellate Court. 47. “Who is an expert?” is the question to be considered as enunciated in Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as follows: “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.” 48. Chapter 22 of the book Law Relating to Proof of Documents (Authored by Bhuvanshwar Singh “Bhuvan” 2nd Edition 2022 (Page-328) describes “who is an expert?” as under: “An expert really means a person who by reason of his training or experience is qualified to express an opinion whereas an ordinary witness is not competent to do so. Chapter 22 of the book Law Relating to Proof of Documents (Authored by Bhuvanshwar Singh “Bhuvan” 2nd Edition 2022 (Page-328) describes “who is an expert?” as under: “An expert really means a person who by reason of his training or experience is qualified to express an opinion whereas an ordinary witness is not competent to do so. His evidence is only an opinion evidence which is based on his special skill or experience. In view of the language of Section 45 of Evidence Act, it is necessary that before a person can be 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. Thus, before the testimony of a witness becomes admissible, his competency as an expert must be shown may be by showing that he was possessed of necessary qualification or that he has acquired special skill therein by experience. Apart from the question that the report of a handwriting expert may be read in evidence what is necessary is that the expert should be subjected to cross-examination because an expert like any other witness is fallible and the real value of his evidence consists in the rightful inference which he draws from what he merely surmises. The expert's evidence is only a piece of evidence and the weight to be given to it has to be judged along with other evidence as evidence of this nature is ordinarily not conclusive. Such evidence therefore, cannot be taken as substantive piece of evidence but is there to corroborate the other evidence.” 49. The expert is the chief performer in the presentation of evidence. The learned Advocates for the plaintiff and defendants shall assist the Court while the Courts are evaluating the performance even though it cannot be said as a perfect science, but it has some scientific reasons and due credentials are given in making comparison of signatures. In the present case, the expert who has made comparison of signature is examined as PW-2. An expert witness is a person, who possesses essential academic background, professional training and experience in the concerned subject and is capable of drawing opinion and conclusion from the facts observed by him are noticed by others. 50. In the present case, the expert who has made comparison of signature is examined as PW-2. An expert witness is a person, who possesses essential academic background, professional training and experience in the concerned subject and is capable of drawing opinion and conclusion from the facts observed by him are noticed by others. 50. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Agarwal vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. AIR 2010 SC 806 observed that regarding the credibility of expert witness depends on the reasons stated in support of its conclusion data and material furnished which formed basis of his conclusions. 51. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jai Lal, 1999 SC 3318 has observed as follows: “Duty of expert witness: The duty for 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 other evidence of the case.” 52. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Gopal Kakkad vs. Novel Dubey, (1992) 3 SCC 204 has held as follows: “A duty is cast on experts witness to put before the Court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion or enlighten the Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the Court, although not an expert, may form its own judgment on those materials after giving due regard to the expert's opinion because once the expert's opinion is accepted, it is not opinions of Medical Officer but the Court.” 53. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Murarilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 531 has held as follows: “An expert deposes and not decides. His duty is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the Judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence.” 54. His duty is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the Judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence.” 54. Regarding rules to be followed by an expert witness, which reads as follows: “Rules to be followed by expert witness: An expert witness has special rules to follow and a special skill in presenting his evidence. The rules are as follows: (1) The expert should be scrupulously accurate both in observation as well as in the interpretation of facts. (2) An expert should not be dogmatically assertive in expressing his conclusions. (3) A Court may not expect absolute certainty but certainly demands honesty and candour. (4) In fact one cannot hope for absolute certainty in the scientific sense. It does not however mean that the expert should not affirm his opinions. (5) Expert is expected to produce the logical precision in the interpretation of facts and in drawing inferences from them. Logical precision is ensured when he relates the facts to the scientific principles and avoids fallacies in interpretation and reasoning. (6) The expert would do well to pay attention to every detail, howsoever trivial it may appear. (7) He is there to assist the Court in ascertaining the truth. He should concern himself only with the facts in the writings and interpret them strictly in accordance with the scientific principles. This is the only way to infuse confidence in his sincerity and impartiality.” 55. Regarding expert evidence and value of expert, it reads as follows: “Expert evidence - Value of - The expert evidence is weighed in the same way as other evidence. The Court is not bound to accept the opinion of an expert automatically, but the grounds on which he gives his opinion would carry value to the evidence. Matters for consideration for the Judge are the nature of the expert testimony, the credentials and qualifications of the expert, the circumstances in which he came to figure as a witness, facts and circumstances of the case, the extent to which the guilt of the accused person depends upon the expert testimony and reliability of the fact on which the expert based his opinion.” 56. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Gujarat vs. Vinaya Chandra Lal Pathi, AIR 1967 SC 778 regarding necessity of expert evidence, it reads as follows: “Expert evidence-Necessity of - A Court is competent to compare the disputed writing of a person with others which are admitted or proved to be his writings. It may not be safe for a Court to record a finding about a person's writing in a certain document merely on the basis of comparison but a Court can itself compare the writings in order to appreciate properly the other evidence produced before in that regard. The opinion of a handwriting expert is also relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but that too is not conclusive, it has also been held that the sole evidence of an handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. It follows that it is not essential that the handwriting expert must be examined in a case to prove or disprove the disputed writing. It was therefore not right for the Judge to consider it unsafe to rely upon the evidence of the complainant in a case like this, i.e. in a case in which no handwriting expert had been examined in support of his statement.” 57. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri. Chand vs. Ramarati Devi, AIR 1980 All 294 has held as follows: “When the Court permits the evidence of an expert to be brought on the record on a technical matter, it does not abdicate its function to judge for itself whether the opinion of an expert is correct or not on a matter, at issue.” 58. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Lal Case (supra) has observed as follows: “Expert evidence-Criteria for admission - An expert witness is one who has made the subject upon which he speaks a matter of particular study practice, or observation and he must have a special knowledge of the subject. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Lal Case (supra) has observed as follows: “Expert evidence-Criteria for admission - An expert witness is one who has made the subject upon which he speaks a matter of particular study practice, or observation and he must have a special knowledge of the subject. 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 identify of handwriting or finger impressions the opinions upon that point of person specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting, or finger impression are relevant facts. Therefore, in order to bring the evidence of a witness 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.” 59. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Case (supra) has observed at paragraph Nos. 16 and 18, it is held as follows: “16. The law of evidence is designed to ensure that the Court considers only that evidence which will enable it to reach a reliable conclusion. The first and foremost requirement for an expert evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to hear the expert evidence. The test is that the matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the lay person. Thus, there is a need to hear an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled. The scientific question involved is assumed to be not within the Court's knowledge. Thus cases where science involved is highly specialized and perhaps even esoteric, central role of expert cannot be disputed. 18. “Section 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion of experts admissible lays down, 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 impression the opinion 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. 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 there in or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject.” 60. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magan Bihari Lal vs. State of Punjab, (1977) 2 SCC 210 has held as follows: “Acceptance of expert evidence - A cardinal principle of the Judge in accepting expert evidence is to exercise caution because the comparison of handwriting is considered a hazardous mode of identification in view of the various inherent practical limitations. The judicial dicta however do not impose a bar on accepting really plausible hypothesis furnished by the expert based on visible, tangible facts and sound reasoning. Before expert testimony is admitted, it has to be established the subject in which expert opinion is necessary, the qualifications essential to justify the status an expert, the witness in question whether really qualified to be an expert and Excise Inspector whether qualified as an expert. When the Court uses its eyes and applies its mind and has the Will to understand, to enable itself to reach a correct conclusion, it is immaterial whether the expert is selected by the Court or by the party, whether he is an official expert or a private expert and which party he represents. The relevant questions before the Judge are: (i) Has the expert informed correctly and completely? (ii) Has he specified clearly the basic facts and the inference thereof? (iii) Are there any ambiguous points? (iv) Is there any fallacy in the expert's reasonings? (v) What more can the expert inform? The expert opinion to be reviewed very cautiously for convincing person. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps more so with additional caution if it is opinion of a handwriting expert. It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. Opinion evidence, is by its very, nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a conviction.” 61. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State (Delhi Administration) vs. Pali Ram, AIR 1979 SC 14 (Pali Ram Case) reported in at paragraph Nos. Opinion evidence, is by its very, nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a conviction.” 61. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State (Delhi Administration) vs. Pali Ram, AIR 1979 SC 14 (Pali Ram Case) reported in at paragraph Nos. 30 and 31 has held as follows: “It is not the province of the expert to act as Judge or Jury. As rightly pointed out in Titli v. Jones, ILR 56 All 428 : AIR 1934 All 273 the real function of the expert is to put before the Court all the materials, together with reasons which induce him to come to the conclusion, so that the Court, although not an expert, may form its own judgment by its own observation of| those materials. Ordinarily, it is noti proper for the Court to ask the expert to give his finding upon any of the issues, whether of law or fact, because, strictly speaking, such issues are for the Court or jury to determine. The handwriting expert's function is to opine after a scientific comparison of the disputed writing with the proved or admitted writing with regard to the points of similarity and dissimilarity in the two sets of writings. The Court should then compare the handwritings with its own eyes for a proper assessment of the value of the total evidence. In this connection, the observations made by Hidayatulla J. (as he then State of Madhya was) in Fakharuddin v. Pradesh (Ibid), AIR 1967 SC 1326 are apposite and may be extracted (at pages 1328, 1329): “Both under Ss. 45 and 47 the evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experience. In either case, the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the disputed one, not to become a handwriting expert but to verify the premises of the expert in one case and to appraise the value of the opinion in the other case. One such means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the disputed one, not to become a handwriting expert but to verify the premises of the expert in one case and to appraise the value of the opinion in the other case. The comparison depends on an analysis of the characteristics in the admitted or proved writings and the finding of the same characteristics in a large measure in the disputed writing. In this way, the opinion of the deponent whether expert or other is subjected to scrutiny and although relevant to start with becomes probative. Where an expert's opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person This is not to say that the Court must play the role of an expert but to say that the Court may accept the fact proved only when it has satisfied itself on its own observation that it is safe to ac-or other witness.” 62. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thiruvengadapillai vs. Navaneethammal and Another, AIR 2008 SC 1541 at paragraph No. 15 has held as follows: “15. While there is no doubt that court can compare the disputed handwriting/signature/ finger impression with the admitted handwriting/signature/finger impression, such comparison by court without the assistance of any expert, has always been considered to be hazardous and risky. When it is said that there is no bar to a court to compare the disputed finger impression with the admitted finger impression, it goes without saying that it can record an opinion or finding on such comparison, only after an analysis of the characteristics of the admitted finger impression and after verifying whether the same characteristics are found in the disputed finger impression. The comparison of the two thumb impressions cannot be casual or by a mere glance. Further, a finding in the judgment that there appeared to be no marked differences between the admitted thumb impression and disputed thumb impression, without anything more, cannot be accepted as a valid finding that the disputed signature is of the person who has put the admitted thumb impression. Further, a finding in the judgment that there appeared to be no marked differences between the admitted thumb impression and disputed thumb impression, without anything more, cannot be accepted as a valid finding that the disputed signature is of the person who has put the admitted thumb impression. Where the Court finds that the disputed finger impression and admitted thumb impression are clear and where the court is in a position to identify the characteristics of finger prints, the court may record a finding on comparison, even in the absence of an expert's opinion. But where the disputed thumb impression is smudgy, vague or very light, the court should not hazard a guess by a casual perusal. The decision in Muralilal (supra) and Lalit Popli (supra) should not be construed as laying a proposition that the court is bound to compare the disputed and admitted finger impressions and record a finding thereon, irrespective of the condition of the disputed finger impression. When there is a positive denial by the person who is said to have affixed his finger impression and where the finger impression in the disputed document is vague or smudgy or not clear, making it difficult for comparison, the court should hesitate to venture a decision based on its own comparison of the disputed and admitted finger impressions. Further even in cases where the court is constrained to take up such comparison, it should make a thorough study, if necessary with the assistance of counsel, to ascertain the characteristics, similarities and dissimilarities. Necessarily, the judgment should contain the reasons for any conclusion based on comparison of the thumb impression, if it chooses to record a finding thereon. The court should avoid reaching conclusions based on a mere casual or routine glance or perusal.” 63. The expert opinion is a conclusion reached through reasoning from facts as they are not from facts as they appear. So, expert bases his examination on laws and principles which he sees through the appearance and goes on to understand the causative factors-the psycho physiological factors-responsible for the production of the writing under examination. Expert examines the evidence in the light of the law of habit by looking to the mannerisms which repeatedly occur within a settled range of natural variation. 64. Expert examines the evidence in the light of the law of habit by looking to the mannerisms which repeatedly occur within a settled range of natural variation. 64. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as stated above the case in hand is to be considered when the plaintiff is disputing the execution of power of attorney to defendant No. 1 and to prove this fact has got summoned Ex.P-11 (thumb impression book) and disputing signature marked as Ex.P-11(a), PW-2 claiming to be an expert on the field has given the report as Ex.P-12 by forming opinion that the signature found in Ex.P-11(a) is not made by the person, who made signature on S-1 to S-12 on the plaint. The Trial Court has accepted the Ex.P-12 (commission report) and evidence of PW-2, but before coming to opinion what are the functions and duties of the experts is to be considered. The expert shall consider the key factors in making comparison of signature on disputed documents and admitted documents, the expert must rely on verity of factors and methods to determine authenticity and detect forgeries. 65. The key factors which the Court can follow are to be considered by the expert, which are as follows: “Key Factors 1. Consistency of Characteristics: Experts look for consistency in specific features of the signature, such as slant, size, pressure, and speed. These include: (i) Stroke Patterns: The way strokes are made, including the direction and flow. (ii) Shape and Size: The overall shape and size of the letters and individual strokes. (iii) Spacing: The spacing between letters, words and lines. 2. Unique Personal Traits: Each person's signature has unique traits or idiosyncrasies, such as: (i) Pen Pressure: Variations in pressure that affect line thickness. (ii) Pen Lifts: Points where the pen is lifted off the paper. 3. Forensic Characteristics: Experts assess: (i) Ink Analysis: Comparing ink types and layers. (ii) Paper Analysis: Checking paper types, textures and any possible alterations. 4. Historical Signatures: Comparison with known genuine signatures, especially those written around the same time as the disputed documents. 5. Document Context: Evaluating the context in which the signatures were made, including the circumstances of the signing. Factors the Court Can Follow 1. (ii) Paper Analysis: Checking paper types, textures and any possible alterations. 4. Historical Signatures: Comparison with known genuine signatures, especially those written around the same time as the disputed documents. 5. Document Context: Evaluating the context in which the signatures were made, including the circumstances of the signing. Factors the Court Can Follow 1. Methodology: (i) Scientific Acceptance: The court ensures that the methodologies used by the expert are widely accepted in the relevant field and not based on fringe theories or practices. (ii) Proper Application: The court checks whether the expert applied the methodology correctly to the facts of the case. 2. Consistency: (i) Internal Consistency: The court looks at whether the expert's opinion is internally consistent and logically coherent. (ii) Consistency with Prior Opinions: If applicable, the court evaluates whether the expert's opinion aligns with prior opinions or reports by the same expert. 3. Cross-Examination: (i) Testing the Opinion: The court allows for cross-examination of the expert to test the robustness of the opinion and expose any weaknesses or biases. (ii) Clarification: The court may require further clarification from the expert to address any ambiguities or uncertainties in the opinion. 4. Reasoned Judgment: (i) Legal Reasoning: The court applies its own legal reasoning to assess how much weight to give to the expert's opinion, considering how it fits with other evidence and the overall case context. (ii) Judicial Expertise: While the court may not substitute its own opinion for that of the expert, it can assess whether the expert's opinion supports or undermines the case's legal arguments. 5. Expert Discretion: (i) Deference to Expertise: The court generally defers to the expert's specialized knowledge but retains the discretion to disagree if the opinion is not well-supported or if the expert's methods are questionable.” 66. The experts shall have to follow the following methods while comparing the signatures, hand writings and thumb impression during investigation, which are as follows: “Methods 1. Visual Examination: The initial step involves a detailed visual inspection of the signatures. Experts use magnification tools to closely examine fine details and differences. 2. Measurement and Analysis: (i) Graphological Analysis: Measuring and analyzing the features of the signature, including stroke patterns, and comparing them to known samples. (ii) Signature Comparison Software: Using specialized software to analyze and compare signatures based on various parameters. 2. Experts use magnification tools to closely examine fine details and differences. 2. Measurement and Analysis: (i) Graphological Analysis: Measuring and analyzing the features of the signature, including stroke patterns, and comparing them to known samples. (ii) Signature Comparison Software: Using specialized software to analyze and compare signatures based on various parameters. 2. Microscopic Analysis: Using microscopes to examine the signatures for fine details like ink spread, pressure points, and underlying pen strokes. 4. Ink and Paper Testing: Conducting tests to identify the type of ink and paper used, which can provide clues about the document's authenticity. 5. Handwriting Analysis: Experts might use techniques from handwriting analysis to evaluate the overall style and structure of the signatures. 6. Historical and Contextual Research: Investigating the context of the documents and the background of the signatories to support or refute claims of authenticity. 7. Expert Testimony: In legal settings, experts may be required to provide testimony explaining their findings and the methods used in their analysis. These factors and methods collectively help forensic experts determine whether a signature is genuine or forged. Each case can present unique challenges, so experts often need to adapt their approach based on the specifics of the disputed documents.” 67. The above said factors and methods collectively held forensic experts determining whether a signature is genuine or forgery. Each case represents unique challenges therefore expert often need to adopt their approach based on the specification of the disputed documents. 68. Once expert gives a report and gives evidence before the Court in support of the report that is not conclusive proof. As per Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is mere an opinion that the Court may accept or reject the report, but either before accepting the expert report or rejecting the same, the Court shall have to assign the reasons. Therefore, the function of the Court is very pivotal in evaluating the credibility of the report. Following are the functions of the Court while evaluating the credibility of the report: “Function of the Court 1. Evaluating the Credibility of the Report: (i) Qualification of the Expert: The court assesses whether the expert who prepared the report has the necessary qualifications, experience, and credentials. (ii) Methodology: The court examines the methods used by the expert to ensure they are scientifically and legally sound. The validity of the techniques and procedures employed in the analysis is scrutinized. Evaluating the Credibility of the Report: (i) Qualification of the Expert: The court assesses whether the expert who prepared the report has the necessary qualifications, experience, and credentials. (ii) Methodology: The court examines the methods used by the expert to ensure they are scientifically and legally sound. The validity of the techniques and procedures employed in the analysis is scrutinized. (iii) Consistency and Relevance: The court looks at whether the findings in the report are consistent with the known facts and whether the report addresses all relevant aspects of the case. 2. Determining the Admissibility: (i) Legal Standards: The court applies legal standards to determine whether the expert's testimony and report meet the criteria for admissibility. This often involves considerations of reliability and relevance. (ii) Rules of Evidence: The court follows rules of evidence that govern how expert reports are introduced and used. These rules can vary by jurisdiction but typically involve ensuring that the expert's findings are based on accepted principles. 3. Assessing the Report's Impact on the Case: (i) Persuasiveness: The court evaluates the persuasiveness of the expert's conclusions and how they impact the overall case. This involves considering how the expert's findings align with other evidence presented. (ii) Weight of Evidence: The court determines the weight to be given to the expert's report relative to other evidence in the case. This includes evaluating how convincingly the expert's findings support one side of the argument. 4. Issuing Comments and Findings: (i) Commentary on the Report: The court may provide commentary on the expert report, highlighting strengths or weaknesses and explaining how it influenced the court's decision. This helps to clarify the reasoning behind the court's conclusions. (ii) Judgment: Based on the evaluation of the expert report, the court makes findings of fact and reaches a judgment. If the report is deemed credible and relevant, it can significantly influence the court's decision. Conversely, if the report is found lacking, it may be disregarded or given less weight. 5. Facilitating Cross-Examination: (i) Testing the Report: The court allows the opposing party to cross-examine the expert, testing the validity of the report and challenging the expert's conclusions. This helps ensure that the expert's findings are thoroughly vetted. 6. Providing Transparency: (i) Reasoned Opinions: The court often provides a reasoned opinion on the expert report, detailing how it was considered in the context of the overall evidence. This helps ensure that the expert's findings are thoroughly vetted. 6. Providing Transparency: (i) Reasoned Opinions: The court often provides a reasoned opinion on the expert report, detailing how it was considered in the context of the overall evidence. This promotes transparency and helps the parties understand the basis for the court's decision.” 69. The Court’s role is to critically evaluate the expert reports ensuring it shall meet legal and scientific standards and determine how they fit into the broader context of the case. The Court’s decision regarding acceptance or rejection of a report is integral to ensure free and fair adjudication. 70. A handwriting expert is a competent witness whose opinion evidence is recognized as relevant under Section 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and has not been equated to the clause of evidence of an accomplish it would therefore, not be fair to approach the opinion evidence with suspicion but the correct approach would be to weigh the reasons on which it is based. The quality of each opinion would depend on the soundness of the reasons on which it is founded. But the Court cannot afford to overhaul the fact that the science of identification of handwriting is an imperfect and frail one as compared to the science of identification of fingerprint; Courts have, therefore, been wary in placing implicit reliance on such opinion evidence and have looked for corroboration but that is not to say that it is role of prudence of general obligation regardless of the circumstances of the case and the quality of expert evidence. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf but the Court has to decide in each case on its own merits what weight it should attach to the opinion of expert. The opinion of an handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act can be relied on when corroborated by other evidence. Though there is no law that without corroboration the opinion evidence cannot be accepted, but due caution and care should be exercised and it should be accepted after probe and examination. Unless the expert submitting his opinion is examined as witness in the Court no reliance can be placed on his opinion alone. Though there is no law that without corroboration the opinion evidence cannot be accepted, but due caution and care should be exercised and it should be accepted after probe and examination. Unless the expert submitting his opinion is examined as witness in the Court no reliance can be placed on his opinion alone. The expert opinion and evidence is also relevant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, but this relevancy must be tested with great caution and cannot be substituted lightly for trivial reasons Magan Bihari Lal Case (supra) and State of Maharashtra vs. Damu, AIR 2000 SC 1691 . 71. It is the rule of law that a witness must have personal knowledge of the facts about which he or she draws inference or gives an opinion. The expert is an exemption to this rule and so the role of the expert is regarded as privileged one in the Courts. Privilege should and does, carry responsibilities for the expert in relation to the Courts the present duties and responsibilities can be traced through a number of leading judgments in the Courts. 72. The First Appellate Court has set aside the evidence of PW-2 and expert opinion report Ex.P-12 on the reason that comparing the signatures itself under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act with the help of magnifying glass and found the signatures on the plaint as S-1 to S-12, Ex.C-1 and in Ex.P-11(a)/thumb impression book are found to be almost similar. Therefore, the First Appellate Court assumed the role of expert and having an instrument of magnifying glass only and upon comparing with his bare eyes made comparison of signatures and came to conclusion that the signatures are almost similar. Therefore, it is finding given by the First Appellate Court that the signature made in Ex. P-11(a) in Ex.P-11/thumb impression book and signature in Ex.C-1, S-1 to S-12 are one and the same. Therefore, it is finding given by the First Appellate Court that the signature made in Ex. P-11(a) in Ex.P-11/thumb impression book and signature in Ex.C-1, S-1 to S-12 are one and the same. Further, the First Appellate Court has observed that PW-1, who is power of attorney holder of plaintiff (since the plaintiff was old aged therefore his grandson has given evidence as PW-1 being power of attorney of the plaintiff) has not proved signature found in Ex.C-1/vakalat executed by the plaintiff and the signature found in Ex.P-1/special power of attorney that they belongs to the plaintiff/D. Venka Reddy therefore, observed that the admitted signatures S-1 to S-12 found in the plaint, as per PW-2/finger print expert cannot be held that they are the admitted signatures of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is opinion formed by the First Appellate Court that by expressing doubt of the signatures made by the plaintiff on the plaint (S-1 to S-12) and on the vakalat/Ex.C-1 therefore, it is opinion given by the First Appellate court is that sending signature/Ex.C-1(a) in Ex.C-1/vakalat of the plaintiff and Ex.P-1/power of attorney to compare signatures/S-1 to S-12 is nothing but severe waste of time and money. This observation of the First Appellate Court can be found in paragraph No. 27 and 30 in its judgment which are completely perverse and illegal. 73. The reasonings given by the First Appellate Court at paragraph No. 27 in its judgment are completely perverse and illegal in nature, for the reason that the First Appellate Court has not at all taken consideration of the disputed signature in Ex.P-11(a) made in Ex.P-11/thumb impression book. The signature of the plaintiff made in Ex.C-1, Ex.P-1 and on the plaint as S-1 to S-12 are admitted signatures of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has never disputed signature on Ex.C-1, Ex.P-1 and on the plaint as S-1 to S-12, when the plaintiff himself admitted these signatures then there is no need to make comparison of signatures of these put on Ex.P-1, Ex.C-1 and S-1 to S-12. The First Appellate Court has completely lost sight of the fact that as per the plaintiff the disputed signature is Ex.P-11(a) in Ex.P-11/thumb impression book but the First Appellate Court has not at all considered what is the disputed signature is in Ex.P-11/thumb impression book. The First Appellate Court has completely lost sight of the fact that as per the plaintiff the disputed signature is Ex.P-11(a) in Ex.P-11/thumb impression book but the First Appellate Court has not at all considered what is the disputed signature is in Ex.P-11/thumb impression book. What the First Appellate Court ought to have done is for appreciation of evidence of admitted signatures made in Ex.C-1, Ex.P-1 and S-1 to S-12 and disputed signatures as Ex.P-11(a) in Ex.P-11, but the First Appellate Court has not at all considered what is the disputed signature disputed by the plaintiff therefore in this regard, the observation made by the First Appellate Court at paragraph No. 27 in the judgment are completely illegal and perverse. 74. The First Appellate Court has not at all considered and discussed the evidence of PW-2/expert witness, Ex.P-12/commission report, Ex.P-13 (13 sign photographs) and Ex.P-13(a) 13 sign photographs negatives. Therefore, the appreciation of evidence made by the First Appellate Court is completely perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. 75. The First Appellate Court in its judgment at paragraph No. 30 has observed and found that the Court is entitled under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to compare LTM found in Ex.P-11 and found in Ex.P-2 with the help of magnifying glass and found almost similar. By this observation and finding the First Appellate Court assumed as if the Court is an expert in the skill in making comparison of thumb impression. The only instrument that held is magnifying glass in making comparison of thumb impression between signatures made in Ex.P-11/thumb impression book and Ex.P-2/original sale deed of the plaintiff having purchased the property on 30.04.1986. Virtually, the First Appellate Court has substituted evidence of PW-2 and commission report/Ex.P-12 by making use of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 76. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows: “73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. Virtually, the First Appellate Court has substituted evidence of PW-2 and commission report/Ex.P-12 by making use of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 76. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows: “73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.” 77. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 empowers the Court to make comparison of signatures, writings or seals with other admitted or proved documents. 78. Section 73 is enacted in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for the purpose of empowering the Court to make comparison of signatures, writings or seals with other admitted or proved documents. At that point of time while enacting Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the British Judges were being given training on this aspect regarding comparison of signatures etc. Therefore, at that point of time the British Judges were experts to some extent to make comparison of signatures, writings or seals with other admitted or proved documents. Therefore, while the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was also brought into force in India at that time the British Judiciary was giving training to judges to make comparison in this regard, therefore, the said provision is continued till this day. When the Judge makes comparison of signatures, writings or seals, he shall state reasonings while observing and giving findings in this regard. Where the parties do not seek for expert evidence to assist the Court, then the Court can make comparison. When the Judge makes comparison of signatures, writings or seals, he shall state reasonings while observing and giving findings in this regard. Where the parties do not seek for expert evidence to assist the Court, then the Court can make comparison. If any of the parties seek for expert evidence in this regard, then the Court may accept or reject the expert report and before that the Court make an endeavor to take recourse as per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If both the parties seek expert evidence and the report is contrary to each other, then the Court is empowered to take recourse as per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or refer to third opinion. But while making exercise under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the Court shall assign reasons in giving findings on comparison of signatures, writing or seal. 79. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pali Ram Case (supra), at paragraph No. 29 observed as follows: “29. The matter can be viewed from another angle, also. Although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing, even without the aid of the evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a handwriting which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against a person accused of an offence, solely on comparison made by himself. It is therefore, not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other; and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert.” 80. The task of the Court while venturing to take recourse as per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is onerous inviting the utmost care and caution since the Court is in the place of expert, not only by giving mere opinion but also deciding the lis. Therefore, when the Court is taking task of comparing signature assumed the role of expert and in this regard the Judge must have some qualification in getting the skill of making comparison of signatures, writings or seal. Therefore, when the Court is taking task of comparing signature assumed the role of expert and in this regard the Judge must have some qualification in getting the skill of making comparison of signatures, writings or seal. While the Court exercises its power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shall not substitute lightly the expert opinion, if already expert evidence is placed on record without valid reasons. When a party seeks expert evidence and expert report is placed on record, then to substitute the said expert report, the Court must assign reasons as to why the expert report is not acceptable. 81. When there is already an expert opinion and evidence as in the present case, Ex.P-12 (expert report) and evidence of PW-2, then for making substitution of the said expert opinion and evidence by the First Appellate Court and decided not to accept expert opinion report then it is incumbent on the First Appellate Court to assign cogent reasons for not accepting expert opinion. But in the present case, the First Appellate Court has not at all considered the disputed signature Ex.P-11(a) found in Ex.P-11 (Thumb Impression Book), but only on the flimsy reason the plaintiff has not proved the signatures as S-1 to S-12 found on the plaint and Ex.C-1(a) found on Ex.C-1 (Vakalat) of the plaintiff are not belonging to the plaintiff. This is completely irrelevant observation made by the First Appellate Court for the reason that the plaintiff himself has admitted the signatures on the plaint as S-1 to S-12 and Ex.C-1(a) found on Ex.C-1 (Vakalat). Therefore, there is no question of proving the signatures found on the plaint as S-1 to S-12 and Ex.C-1(a) found on Ex.C-1 (Vakalat) belonging to plaintiff. The task of the First Appellate Court is to make comparison of signatures between admitted and disputed signatures. When the plaintiff admitted signatures as S-1 to S-12 and Ex.C-1(a) in Ex.C-1 (Vakalat) signature is made by the plaintiff himself, but the First Appellate Court has doubted that those are not the admitted signatures of the plaintiff, this is nothing but irrelevant and unsustainable observations and reasonings. What the first appellate court did was just compared signatures S-1 to S-12 and Ex.C-1(a) and observed which are similar. Obviously these two are admitted signatures hence quite naturally they are found similar. This is observed by the First Appellate Court. What the first appellate court did was just compared signatures S-1 to S-12 and Ex.C-1(a) and observed which are similar. Obviously these two are admitted signatures hence quite naturally they are found similar. This is observed by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court has not at all ventured to compare disputed signature Ex-P-11(a). The first appellate court comparing only admitted signature found they are similar one. 82. The crux of the matter involved is, the plaintiff has not executed Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 and as per the claim of the plaintiff registration of the Power of Attorney is by playing fraud and signature found on Ex.P-11(a) found on Ex.P-11 (Thumb Impression Book) is forged one. Therefore, the Trial Court during the Trial has entertained the application filed for expert opinion report of examining of signatures with the help of an expert. Accordingly, the Trial Court had got expert opinion report (Ex.P-12) and received evidence of PW-2 (expert evidence). PW-2 has given evidence as per his investigation made in the Ex.P-12 (commission report), the signature has made Ex.P-11(a) found on Ex.P-11 (Thumb Impression Book) is not that of the person, who made signatures on Ex.C-1(a) found on Ex.C-1 (Vakalat) and on the plaint as S-1 to S-12. PW-2 in the evidence and Ex.P-12 (commission report) has considered the factors such as pen pressure, stroke, vertical and slants, circulars, body portion, starting stroke, ending stroke, upper stroke, vowel shape and hook etc., and therefore by observing all these, in the admitted signatures and disputed signatures found that the signatures in admitted and disputed signatures are different. When PW-2 with his expertise and his skill on the field submitted report and has given evidence the Trial Court after appreciating all the evidence has accepted expert opinion, but the First Appellate Court without assigning any reasons and even by not considering the signature made at Ex.P-11(a) found in Ex.P-11 (Thumb Impression Book) has falsely assigned reason that upon making comparison of signatures found to be similar in nature. Therefore, the presiding officer of the First Appellate Court assumed himself being an expert on the filed and rejected the expert report is absolutely not correct approach. 83. The First Appellate Court has lost sight principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Muralilal Case (supra) at paragraph Nos. Therefore, the presiding officer of the First Appellate Court assumed himself being an expert on the filed and rejected the expert report is absolutely not correct approach. 83. The First Appellate Court has lost sight principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Muralilal Case (supra) at paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 observed as follows: “11. We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, that opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with in subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted. 12. The argument that the court should not venture to compare writings itself, as it would thereby assume to itself the role of an expert is entirely without force. Section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. If it is hazardous to do so, as sometimes said, we are afraid it is one of the hazards to which Judge and litigant must expose themselves whenever it becomes necessary. There may be cases where both sides call experts and the voices of science are heard. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the court to compare the writings and come to its own conclusion. There may be cases where both sides call experts and the voices of science are heard. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the court to compare the writings and come to its own conclusion. The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the court is no expert. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the court. Where there is none, the court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative textbook and the court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence. We may mention that Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar and Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. were cases where the Court itself compared the writings.” 84. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy vs. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Dead) and Another, (2019) 14 SCC 220 at paragraph Nos.10, 11, 12 and 13, it is held as follows: “10. By now, it is well settled that the court must be cautious while evaluating expert evidence, which is a weak type of evidence and not substantive in nature. It is also settled that it may not be safe to solely rely upon such evidence, and the court may seek independent and reliable corroboration in the facts of a given case. Generally, mere expert evidence as to a fact is not regarded as conclusive proof of it. In this respect, reference may be made to a long line of precedents that includes Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 381 : 1957 Cri. L.J. 559, Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529 , Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 2 SCC 210 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 313 and S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 4 SCC 596 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 792. 11. We may particularly refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529 , where it was observed that the evidence of a handwriting expert can rarely be given precedence over substantive evidence. 11. We may particularly refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529 , where it was observed that the evidence of a handwriting expert can rarely be given precedence over substantive evidence. In the said case, the court chose to disregard the testimony of the handwriting expert as to the disputed signature of the testator of a will, finding such evidence to be inconclusive. The court instead relied on the clear testimony of the two attesting witnesses as well as the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will. 12. On the other hand, in Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980) 1 SCC 704 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 330, this Court emphasised that reliance on expert testimony cannot be precluded merely because it is not corroborated by independent evidence, though the Court must still approach such evidence with caution and determine its creditworthiness after considering all other relevant evidence. After examining the decisions referred to supra, the Court was of the opinion that these decisions merely laid down a rule of caution, and there is no legal rule that mandates corroboration of the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. At the same time, the Court noted that Section 46 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter “the Evidence Act”) expressly makes opinion evidence open to challenge on facts. In Alamgir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 1 SCC 21 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 165, without referring to Section 46 of the Evidence Act, this Court reiterated the observations in [Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980) 1 SCC 704 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 330] and stressed that the court must exercise due care and caution while determining the creditworthiness of expert evidence. 13. In our considered opinion, the decisions in Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980) 1 SCC 704 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 330 and Alamgir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 1 SCC 21 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 165 strengthen the proposition that it is the duty of the court to approach opinion evidence cautiously while determining its reliability and that the court may seek independent corroboration of such evidence as a general rule of prudence. Clearly, these observations in Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980) 1 SCC 704 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 330 and Alamgir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 1 SCC 21 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 165 do not go against the proposition stated in [Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529 ] that the evidence of a handwriting expert should rarely be given precedence over substantive evidence.” 85. Section 73 read as a whole in the light of Section 45 and Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, makes it clear that the Court does not exceed its power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if in the interest of justice if directs a person appearing before it, whether it is civil or criminal Court to give sample writing to enable the same to be compared by handwriting expert because even in adopting such course the purpose is to enable the Court to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing and to reach its own conclusion with assistance of the expert. 86. The Court is entitled to compare disputed and admitted signature and handwriting for coming to a conclusion but rule of prudence and caution requires that in the first place expert opinion should be obtained for assistance and if such opinion is not available then the Judge presiding over the Court must disclose in the judgment his knowledge in the subject of comparison of handwriting or should mention that he has taken aid from some authority to textbook. The Court should also mention whether the lead of its contention finds support from some evidence adduced by the parties which may be in the shape of oral or documentary evidence or direct evidence. The First Appellate Court while rejecting the expert opinion (Ex.P-12) and evidence of PW-2 has not assigned any reasons and has not stated whether he is skilled person to make comparison of signatures under what authority to test he has made observation that signatures are almost similar is not forthcoming in the reasonings. PW-2 in his report (Ex.P-12) had assigned reasons after taking recourse by examining the disputed and admitted signatures and give detailed report, but the First Appellate Court has not assigned any reasons and the reasons made in the judgment of the First Appellate Court are not cogent and valid to reject the expert opinion. PW-2 in his report (Ex.P-12) had assigned reasons after taking recourse by examining the disputed and admitted signatures and give detailed report, but the First Appellate Court has not assigned any reasons and the reasons made in the judgment of the First Appellate Court are not cogent and valid to reject the expert opinion. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has committed blatant error. 87. The law of evidence is designed to ensure that the Court considers only that evidence which will enable it to reach a reliable conclusion. The first and foremost requirement for an expert evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to hear the expert evidence. Following are the factors why the expert evidence is necessary to consider the lis: (a) The test is that the matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the lay person. (b) Thus, there is Neal to hear an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled. (c) The scientific question involved is, assumed to be not within the Courts knowledge. (d) In cases where the science is involved, is highly socialized and perhaps even esoteric, the central role of expert cannot be disputed. 88. Therefore, upon considering the pleadings, evidence and judgment and decree passed by both the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court has committed a grave error in rejecting expert opinion. Though the expert report is mere opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but it should not lose sight of the fact that an expert before coming to some conclusion has taken a recourse of adopting scientific approach for his examination. Though there is no binding on the Court to accept the expert report, in the lighter manner it cannot also be rejected either before accepting or rejecting the expert report. The Court shall assign reasons while accepting or rejecting the expert report and the decision of the Court shall not be arbitrary. The Court is duty bound to take all caution and must adopt a prudent approach before coming to one conclusion though the Court is empowered to make comparison of signature, writing or seal under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. When an expert opinion is available on record, to reject the same the equivalent reasons are essential. The Court is duty bound to take all caution and must adopt a prudent approach before coming to one conclusion though the Court is empowered to make comparison of signature, writing or seal under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. When an expert opinion is available on record, to reject the same the equivalent reasons are essential. Comparison of making signature, writing or seal shall not be in mechanical way or for personal satisfaction there must be cogent and valid reasons either to accept or reject the expert report. Therefore, upon considering the principle of law laid down as above discussed, the reasons given by the First Appellate Court are completely perverse in nature. 89. When it is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 has forged signature of the plaintiff and created power of attorney and got registered by making forgery signature in the office of the Sub Registrar for the purpose of engulping the property of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff has placed documentary evidence of letters (Exs.P-8 and P-10). The consideration of above said letters are essential to gather intention of defendant No. 1 to defraud the plaintiff, it is not only safe to consider the entire case only on expert evidence but it depends on the alleged power of attorney, signatures made there on whether it is fraud or genuine as discussed above along with letters Exs.P-8 and P-9. But the case of the plaintiff is considered in the probability of what defendant No. 1 had intention to dupe property of the plaintiff. Exs.P-8 and P-10 (letters) stated to have been written by defendant No. 1 addressing to the plaintiff. The intention in the said letters goes to prove that defendant No. 1 had prepared to make loss to the plaintiff by duping the property thereby defrauding the plaintiff. From these letters (Exs.P-8 and P-10), it is proved that defendant No. 1 had his eyes on the property to dupe the property of the plaintiff. When these letters are considered and appreciated in the background of alleged creation of power of attorney by defendant No. 1 stated to have been executed by the plaintiff as in detail discussed above, then it is proved that defendant No. 1 had made the deliberate attempt to knock off the property of the plaintiff. When these letters are considered and appreciated in the background of alleged creation of power of attorney by defendant No. 1 stated to have been executed by the plaintiff as in detail discussed above, then it is proved that defendant No. 1 had made the deliberate attempt to knock off the property of the plaintiff. These letters have not been denied by the legal heirs of defendant No. 1. Therefore, upon considering the case on its preponderance of probabilities as discussed above in detail the Trial Court has rightly come to conclusion that there is fraud played by defendant No. 1 in creating alleged power of attorney with an intention to transfer the property to defendant No. 2 and then in-turn from defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 3. Therefore, there is no valid conveyance of property since defendant No. 1 did not have title over the property as admitted by defendant No. 1 himself in his written statement that plaintiff is the owner and having title over the property. Therefore, the plaintiff is proved to be owner of the suit schedule property but defendant No. 1 by defrauding the plaintiff created a forged power of attorney and by fraudulent means sold the suit schedule property to defendant No. 2 and in this regard there is no valid conveyance of property. Hence, the Trial Court is correct in declaring the suit as prayed for and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is perfectly justifiable, legal and correct one, but the First Appellate Court has committed error in reversing it. Accordingly, I answer substantial question of law Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative. Substantial question of law No. 3 is answered accordingly what are the factors and functions while considering expert opinion in detail above discussed. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is liable to be set aside by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 90. Kum. Renuka Yelamali, learned Amicus Curiae assisted the Court very well and her services in assisting the Court is placed on record. Therefore, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee is requested to pay professional fee as per Rules. 91. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: (i) The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. 90. Kum. Renuka Yelamali, learned Amicus Curiae assisted the Court very well and her services in assisting the Court is placed on record. Therefore, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee is requested to pay professional fee as per Rules. 91. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: (i) The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 23.04.2011 passed in R.A. No. 52/2005 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Bellary, is hereby set aside. (iii) The judgment and decree dated 06.09.2005 passed in O.S. No. 54/1995 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hospet, is hereby confirmed. (iv) Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court Records to the concerned Court along with copy of this order forthwith. (v) Draw decree accordingly. (vi) No order as to costs.