Graphologist's Report Cannot Be Admitted As Evidence To Determine Testator's State Of Mind Without Stating It's Relevance: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a graphologist's report cannot be admitted as expert evidence to determine the testator's state of mind unless its relevance and scientific basis are demonstrated in terms of the Evidence Act. The Court observed that in the absence of showing that graphology is a recognised science capable of assisting the Court, such opinion cannot be treated as admissible expert evidence.Justice Valmiki Menezes was hearing a writ petition challenging an order of the Civil Judge, which had allowed the plaintiffs to produce additional documents, namely two reports of a graphologist, at the stage of final arguments in a suit disputing the validity of a Will. The suit, filed in 2009, sought a declaration that a Will executed in 2008 was null and void on the ground that the testatrix was not in a sound state of mind and that the Will was obtained by coercion.The High Court first examined the procedural requirements under Order 7 Rule 14 and Order 13 Rule 1 of the CPC, emphasising that production of documents at a belated stage requires showing “good cause” and due diligence. It found that the application contained no explanation for the delay, despite the report being available months prior to its filing, and therefore held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to allow such production.The Court also analysed Section 39(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 45 of the Evidence Act), which governs expert opinion. It held that for an opinion to qualify as expert evidence, the subject matter must involve specialised knowledge and the expert must demonstrate expertise in a recognised field capable of assisting the Court.The Court noted that the dispute was not regarding the authenticity of the signature or handwriting, but the mental condition of the testatrix at the time of execution of the Will. It held that handwriting analysis under the Evidence Act is relevant only for the identification of handwriting, and not for determining mental state unless supported by a recognised scientific basis.Examining the graphologist's reports, the Court found that they did not establish graphology as a recognised science nor explain how handwriting analysis could determine the mental condition of the testatrix. The Court further noted that graphology is generally regarded as a pseudoscience and its conclusions are not supported by scientific evidence. It observed:“… neither of the reports throws light on the claim that Graphology is a science nor the manner in which the opinion of the Graphologist would in any manner support the evidence of the two eye witnesses to the execution of the Will and the doctor's evidence.”The Court remarked that the trial court failed to assess whether the proposed evidence had any relevance to the issues in the suit before allowing its production.Holding that the trial court mechanically allowed the application without examining jurisdictional requirements or evidentiary relevance, the High Court set aside the impugned order.Case Title: Vincent Philip D'Costa v. Stella Lawrence Freitas [Writ Petition No. 185 of 2026]Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)145Click Here To Read/Download Order

Graphologist's Report Cannot Be Admitted As Evidence To Determine Testator's State Of Mind Without Stating It's Relevance: Bombay High Court

Saksham Vaishya

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Saksham Vaishya

Graphologist's Report Cannot Be Admitted As Evidence To Determine Testator's State Of Mind Without Stating It's Relevance: Bombay High Court

Saksham Vaishya

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Saksham Vaishya

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers