B. Amit Sthalekar, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Gulab Chandra holding brief of Shri Rajesh Bhatt for the appellant.
(2.) This is the defendant's second appeal.
(3.) The plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of the sale dated 13.9.1985 on the ground that the said sale deed was obtained by the defendants by fraud and by setting up an imposter and that the said sale deed was never executed by the plaintiff and she was never paid any consideration either. The trial court framed issues. Issue no. 1 was whether the sale deed dated 13.9.1985 deserves to be cancelled on the basis of the averments. The issue no. 2 was whether the defendants were in possession of any portion of the disputed property or whether the same should be got vacated and possession be handed over to the plaintiff. In the proceedings before the trial court, the plaintiff filed application 20 Ga dated 13.10.1986 for a direction to the defendants to produce the original sale deed. The defendants filed an application same day, Paper No. 21 Ga stating that the original sale deed had been misplaced by him and despite best efforts to search the same it could not be traced out and as soon as the same is available, the same will be filed. In his examination in chief, Paper no. 85 Ga-2 at page 5, the defendant further stated that he had seen the sale deed while drafting the written statement and he had shown the same to his counsel. On this the trial court has recorded a finding that the sale deed was in the possession of the defendant but still he did not file the same in the suit proceedings. Paper No. 93 Ga, photo copy of the khatauni 1398 Fasli to 1403 Fasli were also filed by the defendant which shows that his name has been recorded in the revenue records as Bhumidhar and from this he has tried to show that there was a valid sale deed in his favour on the basis of which his name had been recorded in the revenue records. The right and left thumb impression of the plaintiff was taken and Paper No. 19Ga, report of the Finger Print Expert and register no. 8 of the office of Sub Registrar were summoned in the court and the thumb impressions were got compared with her thumb impressions on the documents. The Finger Print Expert gave a negative finding holding that the thumb impressions do not match and so far as right thumb specimen is concerned that does not match with the thumb impressions available on the register no. 8 of the office of Sub Registrar. In respect of the enlargement copy, Paper No. 31 Ga, a finding was recorded that the alleged left thumb impression in register no. 8 of the Sub Registrar's office is different from that of specimen thumb impression, Paper No. 29Ga. On this finding the trial court has held that the two thumb impressions of the plaintiff do not match with those available in the register no. 8 of the office of Sub Registrar. The defendant also filed his Finger Print Expert report but he did not file the negative of the same. This report is Paper No. 66 Ga and 65 Ga and were held to be inadmissible in evidence. D.W. 2 one Shri Ali Ahmad was also produced by the defendant as witness who has stated that he had seen Jay Tula the alleged plaintiff for the first time only on the day when the sale deed was being registered and that he does not know Smt. Jay Tula personally. In his examination in chief, Paper No. 86 Ka 2 at page 2, the D.W. 2 has stated that he cannot tell whom he had identified in the office of the Sub Registrar as Smt.Jay Tula.;