Judgment:
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.
1. The defendants are appellants. The suit was laid for specific performance or reconveyance of the property under the terms of Ex.P.1. The courts below have concurrently found that Exhibit P 1 is valid and properly executed and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree based on that.
It was vehemently submitted before this Court by the Counsel for the appellants that the document is concocted and even one of the witness to Ex.P.1 came to witness box and disown his signature in the Agreement. But the courts below have disbelieved such contention and concurrently found on fact that the document is valid and granted decree. Being decision based on concurrent findings. I do not want to interfere. No question of law is involved and the second appeal is dismissed.
2. Before parting with, I would like to make an observation regarding the comment made by the. First Appellate Judge Mr. N.B. Kulkarni on the members of the Bar. That is-
'At this juncture I also fail not to note that the Bar before the then learned Additional Munsiff, Hukkeri that was to participate in the proceedings for the parties while recording the evidence of those witnesses, ought to have been mindful as to whether the particular documents spoken to by witness were available or not and even more so about the certainty of exhibit numbers being given and the trial court putting its initials on documents so exhibited. With heavy mind I pause from making further discussion in this context,'
This act on the part of the learned Judge is uncalled for. The learned Judge has no business to comment on the members of the Bar, after all the members of the Bar are doing their duty. They should be equally respected. No comments on any member of the Bar should be made in any of the Judgments.
3. I am directing the Office to send a copy of the judgment to the concerned Judge so that he can avoid such act of commenting on the Bar members in future.
With this observation, the second appeal is dismissed.