In Byalla Devadas v. Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao, it was held that the handwriting or signature on a disputed document cannot be compared with handwriting or signature on the vakalatnama or written statement.
The respondent first filed a suit for recovery of a sum of ₹1,71,600/- with interest and costs. The defendant (petitioner in the present case) filed a written statement which stated that the suit promissory note was forged. Meanwhile, the petitioner also moved an interim application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to compare his signature in the suit promissory note with the four promissory notes attached with the application along with receiving of his specimen signatures in the open court. The petitioner preferred this civil revision petitioner for the dismissal of the said application.
The respondent first filed a suit for recovery of a sum of ₹1,71,600/- with interest and costs. The defendant (petitioner in the present case) filed a written statement which stated that the suit promissory note was forged. Meanwhile, the petitioner also moved an interim application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to compare his signature in the suit promissory note with the four promissory notes attached with the application along with receiving of his specimen signatures in the open court. The petitioner preferred this civil revision petitioner for the dismissal of the said application.
Whether an interference should be made to allow the referral of suit promissory note and other relevant documents for expert opinion in the facts and circumstances of this case?
The Andhra Pradesh High Court placed reliance on Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and held that the Trial Court’s ratio i.e. the dismissal of the said application on the ground that it was filed after closure of evidence on plaintiff’s side but not before commencement of the trial. In the said case, it was observed that no time limit should be fixed for filing an application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for referral of disputed signature or handwritings to the handwriting expert for comparison and it should be left open to the discretion of the court.
The Court also distinguished the present case from Gulam Ghouse and Ors. v. Jeelania Shama-ul-uloom on the ground that the present case involves signatures on the vakalatnama and written statement for comparison with the signatures on the suit promissory note.
The Court placed reliance on the decision of P. Padmanabhaiah v. G. Srinivasa Rao wherein it was held that the signatures on vakalatnama and written statement cannot be used for comparison with disputed signatures because of the presumption that by the date of filing of the vakalatnama, the defendant is clear on his stand for denying the genuineness of the signatures on the suit promissory note and therefore, he may have designedly disguised his signatures on the vakalatnama or written statement. In the said case, it was further observed that unless the defendant provides documents from a contemporaneous period, the expert will not be in a position to form an assured opinion.
Based on the ratio of P. Padmanabhaiah v. G. Srinivasa Rao, the court deemed it right to not interfere with the order of dismissal by the Trial Court.
The comparison between signatures on a disputed document with signatures on vakalatnama or written statement because by the date the defendant files vakalatnama or written statement before the court, he is clear on his stand of denial and therefore, stands in a position where he can designedly disguise his signatures on such documents.
About the author
