AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesam, J.—The question is whether Ex. A is genuine. This is a question of fact. The learned vakil for the petitioner argued that the
Subordinate Judge''s appreciation of the evidence was influenced by his erroneous conception of the law relating to a vendor''s covenant as to title,
but I am not satisfied that there is anything erroneous in the Subordinate Judge''s statement of the law. The vakil also argued that the Subordinate
Judge''s statement about the ink of the signatures of the two attesting witnesses is not correct though the difference in ink is not quite convincing to
me that the origin of the document is suspicious. I cannot say there is no difference. Similar remarks apply to the Subordinate Judge''s statement
about the last sentence in the document and to the last four lines and middle four lines being written closely.
It may be that the High Court has power to interfere in Small Cause Revision even on the question of fact, Nathuram Shivnarayan v. Dhularam
Hariram ILR (1920) B 292 but that can apply only in a case when the Lower Court''s judgment is obviously wrong and perverse and only one
conclusion is possible. I am not able to say that here.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.