1. ' In this Revision the applicant has impugned the judgment and decree dated 6-11-1991 and 24-11- 1991 respectively, passed by Ms. Mah Jabeen, learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi Central, whereby she set aside the judgment and decree passed in this matter by learned IInd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, Central. The facts relevant for decision of this revision are as follows:-- ' Applicant Mst. Nusrat Khanum on 15-11-1988 filed the Suit No,1530 of 1988 against respondent Liaqat Ali for recovery of Rs,60,000 being the value of her dowry. It is her case that she was married to the respondent on 24-9-1983 and was divorced by him in December, 1987. During the wedlock two children were born to her. Earlier, she had filed two suits against the respondent. One was for recovery of dower and the other for maintenance and both were decreed. She has claimed that at the time of marriage, her parents, as per list Exh.P.1, had given her dowry, including golden ornaments and a plot. She has not claimed the value of above two items as they are with her. She prayed that either the respondent be directed to return her articles of dowry or in the alternative to pay her an amount of Rs,60,000.
2. ' The respondent in Written Statement, denied the claim of the applicant and maintained that no articles of dowry at the time of marriage were given to her by her parents.
3. ' From the pleadings of the parties, learned Senior Civil Judge settled the following issues:-- (1)What dowry articles were given by the parents and other relatives of the plaintiff, to the plaintiff at the time of marriage?
4. (2)Whether the parents of the plaintiff had given the entire dowry articles to the defendant and obtained his signature at the time of delivery of said articles?
5. (3)Whether dowry articles of plaintiff are still in the custody of the defendant?
6. (4)To what relief the plaintiff is entitled? What (5)should the decree be?
7. ' At trial, the applicant examined herself and her witness Muhammad Ashfaq. The respondent examined himself and his witness Muhammad Ashraf.
8. ' On assessm ent of oral and documentary evidence learned trial Judge decided all the issues in favour of the applicant and decreed the suit for Rs,45,000 vide judgment and decree dated 27th May, 1991, which findings in appeal were reversed by the impugned judgment and decree.
9. ' It is pertinent to point out here that, after the arguments were heard, the applicant moved an application that, beside merits, she may also be permitted to prove her case on Special Oath.
10. Notice, of this application was given to the respondent. She gave an option to the respondent either to say on special oath that he had not received said dowry or permit her to say that her dowry has been detained by him. The respondent did not agree to either of the suggestions and wanted decision on merits.
11. ' It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the finding of learned Additional District Judge to the effect that the signatures of respondent do not appear at the list Exh.P.1 (photo copy and original are at pages 55 and 69) is contrary to the material available on record and, in fact, it shows that first Appellate Court acted in exercise of the jurisdiction illegally and as such committed material irregularity, which ultimately caused injustice to the applicant. This is the case of applicant that she was given dowry as per list in question and that the list bears the signature of respondent.
12. It is significant to note that applicant was cross-examined at length and during the cross- examination it was suggested to her that the words "received the above-mentioned items according to the list" were not in the handwriting of the respondent, which suggestion was denied by her. She maintained that the list contains the signature of respondent. In her cross-examination, although it was suggested that the list of dowry was bogus but it was never specifically suggested to her that the list did not bear the signature of respondent. In the closing lines of her cross- examination, it was suggested to her that, like golden ornaments, the other articles were also not handed over to him (respondent). This, in fact, is an implied admission to the effect that dowry articles were given by the parents of the applicant. In stands proved from her evidence that dowry, as per list, was given to her by her parents at the time of marriage. The respondent in his deposition of course had denied his signature on said list. He, however, admitted his signatures on Written Statement, Vakalatnama, and Nikahnama. At one stage he contradicted himself in cross- examination, when he stated that Photo Copy of Nikahnama does not bear his signature.
13. Under Article 84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the Court has power to compare disputed signatures with the admitted signatures and while doing so it must be extremely cautious. This is for the reason that the science of the study of calligraphy is not treated as definite and precise. Phear, J. In Lallah Jah v. Tullebmatool, 21 W.R. 436 observed as follows:--- "'It may be generally said that no two real signatures of any person accustomed to write freely ever correspond exactly, there is always some degree of diversity between them. And in making the comparison between two real signatures the opinion of people would differ as to the amount of apparent diversity."
14. Above observations, however, do not disqualify a Judge from using his own eyes for comparing the disputed signatures with those which are admitted. The signature is a writing and as such is tangible. Every individual has his own nature and habit and so the distinct characteristics of writing.
15. The most important thing for the purpose of comparing the signature is to examine the general characteristics, formation of letters, fixed pen habits and mannerism etc. Keeping the above principles in view, it is noted that there is no clear dissimilarity between the admitted and disputed signatures of the respondent. Learned First Appellate Court, however, without assigning any cogent reason on this point reversed the finding of the trial Court in the following words:- "I have compared the signatures of appellant with the admitted signatures appearing on Vakalatnama, Nikahnama, Written Statement and counter-affidavit and find that they do not tally with the signature appearing on the list."
16. ' Looking to the combination of characteristics even at a glance one can say without any hesitation that the disputed signatures are of the respondent. Accordingly so is ordered.
17. ' The property given as dowry vests in the bride and her interest in the property is absolute. In para. 4 of the plaint, the applicant has stated that value of the entire dowry was Rs,80,000. In cross- examination, she deposed that value of the plot was Rs,50,000 while the ornaments were worth Rs,7,000 to 8,000. Thus, the total value of these two items conies to Rs,58,000. On this basis, the value of the remaining items of the list, which include table, sofa and crockery etc. Would be Rs,22,000. The applicant is entitled to above amount.
18. ' Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi Central are set aside and the judgment and decree of Senior Civil Judge, Karachi Central are restored to the extent of Rs,22,000 only. The suit of the applicant against the respondent stands decreed for the aforesaid amount with no order as to costs.