GUNTAKA HUSSENAIAH Vs. BUSETTI YERRAIAH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Subba Rao, C.J. -
(1.) THIS is a Plaintiff's second appeal against the deeree and judgment of the -Court of the District Judge of Nellore setting; aside that of the District Munsif of Kanigirl in Order 8. No. 128 of 1947, a suit filed by the appellant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 604 -12 -0 -from the Defendants.
(2.) THE Plaintiff's case is that the Defendant took from the Plaintiff Rs. 502 -8 -0 to pay to butchers and Rs. 10/ - for his own expenses on 4 -4 -1944 and signed an entry in the Plaintiff's account -book in token of the same. The Defendant denied that he took any money from the -Plaintiff and charged the Plaintiff with fabrication of accounts to support a false claim. The learned District Munsif, on a consideration of the entire evidence, held in favour of the Plaintiff. The learned District Judge differed from; him and dismissed the suit. Hence the appeal. The finding is one of fact. While conceding that, the learned Counsel for the appellant argues that the said finding is vitiated by two circumstances: (1) The learned Judge has not correctly appreciated the scope of expert's evidence and (2) the Judge acted illegally in relying upon previous, decisions, where the Plaintiffs' suits on promissory notes were dismissed,, in order to evaluate the character of the Plaintiff. The learned Judge commented on the manner of approach of the learned District Munsif in regard to the expert's evidence. He pointed out that the learned District Munsif was. wrong in substituting the expert's decision to his own and that he should have exercised his own mind in coming to the conclusion whether the expert's opinion was correct or not. He observed:
The lower Court overlooked the fact that the opinion of the expert is only a piece of evidence, which has to be examined and appraised like any other evidence that might be adduced in the case and that it is the opinion of the Judge that is after all the decision in the case. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the Court to use its own eyes in deciding whether certain handwritings placed before it are similar or not, utilising of course the opinion of the expert and the evidence, which he gave in support of it, as a guide but subjecting it to a close and searching scrutiny....
(3.) THE observations are to my mind, unexceptionable. The Judge does not lay down anything illegal when he points out that it is a duty of the Munsif to come to a conclusion on a question of, a fact on a consideration of the entire evidence including that of the expert.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.