EXPERT OPINION ON DISPUTED THUMB IMPRESSIONS OVERRIDES ENTRIES IN SUBSEQUENT REVENUE RECORDS TO DETERMINE PATERNITY AND TITLE.

The plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding the suit schedule property, claiming their father, Poojari Lingappa s/o Poojari Muddappa, purchased it via a registered sale deed on 21.08.1958 (Ex.P1).

Defendant No. 1 (appellant) contested the suit, asserting she was the widow of the same Poojari Lingappa and that the plaintiffs were residents of Andhra Pradesh who had been brought in only to perform temple rituals.

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, primarily relying on revenue records (Ex.P49-51) and pension documents (Ex.P28-32) suggesting the first defendant's husband was one "Ninganna s/o Veeranna".

The High Court, noting a discrepancy in the identity of the executants of the 1958 sale deed (Ex.P1) and a 1964 gift deed (Ex.P2) relied upon by the plaintiffs, referred the documents for expert fingerprint/handwriting analysis.

1. Whether the lower courts were justified in finding that Poojari Lingappa (the purchaser in Ex.P1) was the father of the plaintiffs and not the husband of Defendant No. 1.

2. Whether the Commissioner’s (Expert) report is acceptable to determine the identity of the executant of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.

3. Whether the findings of the lower courts were perverse based on the misappreciation of oral and documentary evidence.

Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which empowers the Court to compare disputed signatures, writings, or thumb impressions with admitted ones to form its own opinion.

State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, establishing that while expert opinion under Section 45 is directory, the Court must satisfy its own conscience by independent comparison.

Order 6 Rule 4 of the CPC regarding the requirement for specific pleadings in cases of fraud.

Section 45 of the Evidence Act regarding the relevance of expert testimony.

The High Court found the lower courts' reliance on voter lists (Ex.P49-51) was misplaced as they contained significant discrepancies in house numbers and were created post-dispute.

The Court highlighted Ex.D13, a 1956 registered document (predating the dispute), which explicitly identified Defendant No. 1 as the wife of Poojari Lingappa.

The Fingerprint Expert (CW1) testified that the thumb impression on the 1958 Sale Deed (Ex.P1) did not match the impression on the 1964 Gift Deed (Ex.P2) used by the plaintiffs to establish their lineage.

Applying Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Court performed its own comparison and concurred that the impressions belonged to different individuals.

The Court concluded that the plaintiffs exploited the first defendant's illiteracy to create pension documents (Ex.P28-32) with incorrect names to defeat her title.

The testimony of DW4, the son of the original 1958 vendor, further corroborated that the sale was made to Defendant No. 1’s husband.

The High Court held that Poojari Lingappa, the owner of the suit property, was indeed the husband of Defendant No. 1 and not the father of the plaintiffs.

The Second Appeal was allowed, the judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were set aside, and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed in its entirety.