- (1.)THIS is a Second Appeal by defendants against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2000 passed in C.A. No. 18 -A/99 by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Rewa, dismissing the appeal of the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1999 passed in Civil Suit No. 55 -A/97 by the IInd Civil Judge Class -I, Rewa.
(2.)THE respondent No.1 -plaintiff filed a suit against the appellants and respondents No. 2 and 3 for declaration to the effect that the land described in the suit was bequeath to the respondent No.1 -plaintiff by original holder of the land by a registered Will deed. The original holder of the land had died on 05.10.1991. While his last rites were being performed the appellants came to the village, took away certain ornaments and papers of the property of the original holder and got a forged Will dated 24.09.1991 prepared, on the basis of which they got their names recorded in the revenue record. When the respondent No.1 -plaintiff came to know about such a fact he objected and filed a suit. It was claimed in the suit that the Will dated 18.06.1991 executed in favour of the respondent No.1 -plaintiff was genuine one and the Will executed in favour of the appellants herein and all the entries made on the basis of such Will in the revenue record was null and void and not binding on the respondent No.1 -plaintiff. The appellants -defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement denying such claim made by the respondent No.1 -plaintiff. They contended in their written statement that the appellant No.1 was in fact daughter of the original holder of the land and out of the love and affection the Will was executed in her favour by the original holder of the land. The appellants got their names recorded on the basis of said valid Will in the revenue record. In fact the Will dated 18.06.1991 said to be executed in favour of the respondent No.1 -plaintiff was a forged document. Even otherwise, since another Will was executed on 24.09.1991 by the original holder of the land in favour of the appellants, the Will dated 18.06.1991 lost its validity. No right was available to the respondent No.1 -plaintiff to claim any right, title or interest in the property in suit on the basis of such Will. Thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
The trial Court after framing of issues recorded the evidence of the parties, got the Will examined by the hand writing expert and decreed the suit of the respondent No.1 -plaintiff holding that the Will dated 18.06.1991 was a genuine Will executed in favour of respondent No.1 -plaintiff. It was further held that the Will dated 24.09.1991 was forged Will. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Court, the appeal was preferred by the appellants before the lower appellate Court which has been dismissed, hence this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.)IT is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the two Courts have utterly failed to see that the Will dated 24.09.1991 was subsequent Will. According to law any previous Will executed on 18.06.1991 had lost its validity. Further while holding that the Will dated 24.09.1991 was a forged document, certain reports of the hand writing expert were examined. However, the reports of the handwriting expert cannot be said to be authentic evidence in view of the fact that only thumb impression was made by the testator of the Will. It was not right on the part of the Courts below to rest their findings on the report of handwriting expert only. Relying on the decision in the case of Alamgir vs. State (NCT, Delhi)[(2003) 1 SCC 21], it is contended that the handwriting expert's opinion are not the conclusive proof of any fact, they need corroboration as the handwriting experts can simply give their opinion. Due caution and care should be exercised while accepting such expert reports and it should be accepted only after a detailed proof and full examination. Further relying in the case of Savithri and others vs. Karthyayani Amma and others, [(2007) 11 SCC 621], it is contended that in a family property, the mental capacity of testator who was unwell at the time of execution of Will causes suspicious circumstances of such facts which were to be taken into consideration and it was to be held that mere examination of the attesting witnesses of the Will would not be sufficient to prove any particular Will. Thus, it is contended that the finding arrived at by the two Courts below are perverse and are liable to be set aside.