egregious error in comparing the signatures by exercising its power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. This Court though appreciates an effort in what it may term as a plea in desperation, it has to be noted that the plaintiff has made a statement impeaching Ext.B.2 and Ext.B.3, some 53 years after they were executed. Secondly, and as has been rightly held by the courts below that the plaintiff herself concedes that her father was known both as Velayutha Thevar and also Velaiah Thevar. Therefore, the only thing that is left is whether the signature of the plaintiff's father in Ext.B.2 and Ext.B.3 reconcile with any of the admitted signature of the plaintiff's father, where he might have signed as Velayutha Thevar. Now, the plaintiff has created a situation, where she comes to the court alleging her father continued to own 91 cents, and when she faced obstruction to this 91 cents in the form of Ext.B.2 and Ext.B.3, she suddenly changed gears and alleges that these documents were fabricated. She appears to believe that when she challenges Ext.B-2 and B-3, the burden would automatically shift to the defendant to establish its genuineness. Not, when it was challenged after half a century.
