S.72 BSA | Courts Must Compare Signatures Themselves, Expert Evidence Cannot Be Called Routinely In Handwriting Disputes: Supreme Court
Courts have full discretion to seek expert opinion only when there is doubt or the writing is smudged, vague, or very light, the Supreme Court clarified.
The Supreme Court has observed that it is impermissible to send every case involving a disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression for expert examination when the Court can compare the signature or writing and reach its own conclusion.
A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan held that expert evidence cannot be called routinely on the mere ground that the Courts are not expert to ascertain the genuineness of the handwriting/signature/finger impression. The Court clarified that only when it has any doubt, or the writing/impression is smudgy, vague, or very light, can it exercise its discretion to call for expert evidence.
“This Court is further of the view that it is the duty of the Court to compare the signature or writing and come to its own conclusion and the same cannot be avoided by recourse to a statement that the Court is not an expert. In fact, the evidence of an expert is only an opinion which is not binding on the Court. Consequently, the finding of the High Court that obtaining expert opinion under Section 39 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is essential for determining the genuineness of the Will is untenable in law. However, the Court has full discretion to seek expert opinion like where it has any doubt or the writing/impression is smudgy, vague or very light.”, the Court observed.
The case arose from the impugned order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Gwalior bench, where the High Court, while reversing the trial court's decision to decline the call for expert evidence, had allowed the Respondent's application seeking a handwriting expert, saying that the expert evidence is 'essential' for determining the genuineness of the 'Will', as it is not an expert.
The Appellant filed a plea before the Supreme Court arguing that the power to call for expert evidence cannot be exercised routinely, when the Courts themselves could utilise their powers under Section 72 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (“BSA”) to compare the signature. Also, the Appellant contended that since the Respondent has itself admitted in its Section 39 BSA application that his father was a tenant, thus, now he cannot simultaneously dispute the genuineness of the 'Will' by raising a question over the signatures.
Per contra, the Respondent defended the High Court's decision to allow for expert evidence, placing reliance on the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal & Anr. to contend that where there is a dispute about handwriting/signature/finger impression, the opinion or finding by the Court could be hazardous and risky and therefore the matter should be sent to an expert.
Finding force in the Appellant's arguments, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order calling for expert evidence of a handwriting expert for comparison of signatures, which could also have been done under Section 72 of BSA.
According to the Court, the decision in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal & Anr. cannot be read to mean that it is essential to examine an expert witness in all cases which involve a disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression.
Only where the Court has any doubt, or the writing/impression is smudgy, vague or very light, can the power to call for expert evidence be utilised.
As a result, the plea was allowed. The trial court's order declining the call for expert evidence was restored.
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Neelakshi Bhadauria, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Karol, Adv. Ms. Akriti Chaubey, AOR Mr. Shashank Sharma, Adv. Ms. Tanishka Pawar, Adv. Mr. Darshan Sejwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Ms. Tanya Raizada, AoR