Abdul Mazid Vs. Abdul Mazid

Abdul Mazid vs Abdul Mazid

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 25, 1984

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/760130

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/760130
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: S.S. Byas, J.
Decided On: Jul 25, 1984
Case Number: S.B. Civil Regular Appeal No. 278 of 1973
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Evidence Act - Handwriting Examination of--Negatives of specimen signature sent to handwriting expert--Held, it is not a sound reason to disturb concurrent finding of lower court;It is true that Ex. 3, Ex. 4 and Ex. A 1 were not sent in original to the Handwriting Expert for comparison. Only their negative photograp...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Mazid

Advocate Mr. Mathur

Respondent

Abdul Mazid

Legal References

Reported In: 1984WLN(UC)219

Excerpt

.....expert for comparison. only their negative photographs were sent. it would have been better if the originals were sent instead of the negative photographs. but that is not a sound reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the courts below.;appeal dismissed with costs - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 1. is a plaintiff s civil second appeal who lost his money suit in the trial as well as in the appellate court. he concurred with the findings of the trial court and held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that ex. it would have been better if the originals were sent instead of the negative photographs. in the instant case i find no good and cogent reasons to disturb the concurrent finding of the courts below......judge. he has also thoroughly discussed, scanned and weighed the evidence of the parties. it may be pointed out that the execution of ex. 3 and ex. 4 was taken as not proved not only on the evidence of handwriting expert but also on other evidence and circumstances. in other words, the finding of the learned district judge is not based only on the evidence of the handwriting expert. it is also based on other evidence and circumstances. the learned additional district judge has advanced cogent and convincing reasons as to way he concurred with the finding of the trial court. in my view, the approach made by the learned additional district judge was proper and justified. he has committed no error in evaluating and weighing the evidence of the parties. no error of law has been pointed out by the learned counsel as to where the learned district judge committed the error in his approach to the evidence of the parties.7. the concurrent finding on the facts of the court below should not be disturbed unless there are cogent and convincing reasons to do so. in the instant case i find no good and cogent reasons to disturb the concurrent finding of the courts below.8. for the reasons stated above, i find no force in this appeal of the plaintiff it is hereby dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

S.S. Byas, J.

1. is a plaintiff s civil second appeal who lost his money suit in the trial as well as in the appellate court.

2. Plaintiff Abdul Majid instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3650/- against the defendant Abdul Majid and his father Mohammed Hanif on the foot of promissory note Ex. 3 and receipt Ex. 4. The case set up by him is that both the defendants executed Ex. 3 and Ex. 4 in his favour for consideration. The amount recited in them has not been paid back to him by the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Mohammed Hanif passed away. The defendant contested the suit and denied the execution of Ex 3 and Ex. 4. The plaintiff was called upon to prove the execution of Ex. 3 and Ex. 4. The parties led evidence in the trial Court. The defendant also examined a Handwriting Expert to show that Ex. 3 and Ex. 4 are forged documents. The trial court held that Ex. 3 and Ex. 4 were not executed by the defendants. The plaintiff went in appeal which was heard by the learned Additional District Judge (1), Jodhpur. He concurred with the findings of the trial court and held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that Ex. 3 and Ex. 4 were executed by the defendants. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

3. The only contention raised by Mr. Mathur appearing for the plaintiff-appellant is that Ex. 3 and Ex. 4 were not sent in original to the Handwriting Expert. Only their negative photographs were sent. It was also argued that the specimen signatures of defendant Abdul Majid, who had executed Ex. 3 and Ex. 4 on his behalf and on behalf of his father Mohammed Hanif were not taken in the presence of the plaintiff Therefore, it cannot be said that the specimen signatures sent to the Handwriting Expert were that of defendant Abdul Majid.

4. I find no force in this contention. The specimen signatures of defendant Abdul Majid were taken in the presence of the Judge of the trial court on Ex. A 1. The defeadant was identified by his advocate before the learned Judge. As such the specimen signatures on Ex.Al cannot be said to have been nude by some body also other than the defendant Abdul Majid. The contention of the learnid counsel on this point thus fails.

5. It is true that Ex. 3, Ex. 4 and Ex. A I were not sent in original to the Handwriting Expert for comparison. Only their negative photographs were sent. It would have been better if the originals were sent instead of the negative photographs. But that is not a sound reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the courts below.

6. I have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties. The learned Judge of the trial court held that Ex. 3 and Ex. 4 were not executed by defendant Abdul Majid on his behalf and on behalf of his father Mohammed Hanif. He his thoroughly discussed the evidence. The matter went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. He has also thoroughly discussed, scanned and weighed the evidence of the parties. It may be pointed out that the execution of Ex. 3 and Ex. 4 was taken as not proved not only on the evidence of Handwriting Expert but also on other evidence and circumstances. In other words, the finding of the learned District Judge is not based only on the evidence of the Handwriting Expert. It is also based on other evidence and circumstances. The learned Additional District Judge has advanced cogent and convincing reasons as to way he concurred with the finding of the trial court. In my view, the approach made by the learned Additional District Judge was proper and justified. He has committed no error in evaluating and weighing the evidence of the parties. No error of law has been pointed out by the learned Counsel as to where the learned District Judge committed the error in his approach to the evidence of the parties.

7. The concurrent finding on the facts of the court below should not be disturbed unless there are cogent and convincing reasons to do so. In the instant case I find no good and cogent reasons to disturb the concurrent finding of the courts below.

8. For the reasons stated above, I find no force in this appeal of the plaintiff It is hereby dismissed with costs.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1984 Same Parties Abdul Mazid vs Abdul Mazid Same Subject Civil Same Judge S.S. Byas, J.

Civil