Dismissed¶67

Gopal Rout Alias Gopal Prasad Rout v. Gopi Rout

Jharkhand HC11 Feb 2025C.M.P./318/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 45 Evidence Act; handwriting expert; signature examination; comparison of signatures; contemporaneous signature; xerox copy; photocopy; certified copy; Parwarik Vaywastha Patra 1975; sale deed 1943; Title Execution Case No.10 of 2005; vakalatnama; Article 227 Constitution of India; quashing; Sub-Judge (Sr. Division)-VIII Deoghar; O.S. No.129 of 2013; declaration of deed illegal, forged and fabricated; Byalla Devadas 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 53; P. Padmanabhaiah AIR 2016 AP 118 (FB); C.M.P. No. 318 of 2024 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Comparison of the disputed signature with the 1943 sale deed and the 2005 documents (photocopy and certified copy), which are not contemporaneous, is impermissible under law, and there is every possibility of change of signature due to passage of time. ¶62

Gopal Rout Alias Gopal Prasad Rout Vs Gopi Rout — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 24.02.2024 passed by the Sub-Judge (Sr. Division)-VIII, Deoghar in O.S. No.129 of 2013, rejecting the plaintiffs' petition under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for expert examination of the signatures of Gajadhar Rout and Shailja Nand Prasad, suffers from illegality.

¶43

Court's answer

¶62

Ratio / Principle

What is required as per law is that an authentic contemporaneous document containing the signature of the parties be reflected along with the disputed signature for comparison.

¶65

Key takeaways

An expert can render an opinion only when the original of the document containing the disputed signature is forwarded, and effective comparison and verification of signatures is possible only if another document containing undisputed signatures of the contemporary period is made available to the expert.ratio¶66
A signature or signature mark on a xerox copy of a document can never constitute the basis for expert comparison.ratio¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

C.M.P. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.02.2024 of the Sub-Judge (Sr. Division)-VIII, Deoghar in O.S. No.129 of 2013 rejecting the plaintiffs' petition dated 27.09.2023 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for examination of the signatures of Gajadhar Rout and Shailja Nand Prasad. The plaintiffs sought comparison of the disputed signature (including on a Parwarik Vaywastha Patra of 1975) with a certified copy of a 1943 sale deed, a xerox copy of the 1943 sale deed and a certified copy of Title Execution Case No.10 of 2005, along with rejoinder petition, time petition and vakalatnama. Held: comparison with documents that are not contemporaneous, that too photocopies and certified copies, is impermissible under law, as signatures change with passage of time and there is every possibility of signing in disguise to obtain a favourable expert opinion; expert opinion under Section 45 is possible only when the original document containing the disputed signature is forwarded and undisputed contemporaneous signatures are made available; a signature on a xerox copy can never constitute the basis for comparison. Relying on Byalla Devadas v. Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 53 (AP). No illegality found in the impugned order; petition dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI C.M.P. No. 318 of 2024

¶2

----

¶3

1. Gopal Rout @ Gopal Prasad Rout, aged about 77 years, son of Late Sobhan Rout.

¶4

2. Madan Rout, aged about 64 years, son of Late Gajadhar Rout.

¶5

3. Murari Rout, aged about 55 years, son of Late Gajadhar Rout.

¶6

4. Ganga Rout @ Gangadhar Rout, aged about 46 years, son of Late Gajadhar Rout.

¶7

5. Aalo Devi, aged about 47 years, widow of Late Anup Rout.

¶8

6. Kabli Devi, aged about 40 years, widow of Late Mohan Rout. All are residents of Mohalla Chhatisi (Jhaunsagarhi), P.O. - B. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar Town, District Deoghar, Jharkhand.

¶9

.... Petitioners

¶10

-- Versus --

¶11

1. Gopi Rout son of Late Girdhari Rout

¶12

2. Chandan Rout son of Late Girdhari Rout

¶13

3. Shaligram Rout son of Late Girdhari Rout

¶14

4. Gautam Rout son of Late Girdhari Rout

¶15

5. Jagdamba Devi wife of Chakradhar Rout and daughter of Late Girdhari Rout

¶16

6. Jamuna Devi wife of Dilip Rout and daughter of Late Girdhari Rout

¶17

7. Smt. Reshmi Devi wife of Gautam Rout

¶18

8. Apurva Devi wife of Chandan Rout

¶19

Sl. Nos. 1 to 4, 6, 7 and 8 all are residents of Mohalla Chhatisi (Jhaunsagarhi), PO – B., Deoghar, PS – Deoghar Town, District – Deoghar, Jharkhand

¶20

Sl. No.5 is the resident of Mungeria Khatal, PO – Burnpur, PS – Burnpur, District – Burdhaman, West Bengal

¶21

…… Defendants/ O.Ps

¶22

9. Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal, son of Late Anup Rout, resident of Mohalla Chhatisi (Jhaunsagarhi), P.O. B. Deoghar, P.S.

¶23

--1--

¶24

C.M.P. No. 318 of 2024

¶25

Deoghar Town, District Deoghar, Jharkhand.

¶26

10. Karuna Devi wife of Anil Kumar and daughter of Late Anup Rout, resident of Shayam Bhawan, Kumar Patti, Maniatand, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.

¶27

11. Asha Devi widow of Late Shambhu Rout, resident of Mohalla Chhatisi (Jhaunsagarhi), P.O. B. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar Town, District Deoghar, Jharkhand.

¶28

12. Durga Devi wife of Mandeshwar Mandal and daughter of Late Shambhu Rout, resident of Mohalla Chhatisi (Jhaunsagarhi), P.O. B. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar Town, District Deoghar, Jharkhand.

¶29

13. Shivani Devi wife of Subhash Mandal and daughter of Late Shambhu Rout, resident of Kadma More, Hiramani, P.O. and P.S. Godda, District Godda, Jharkhand.

¶30

14. Maheshwari Devi wife of Basant Mandal and daughter of Late Shambhu Rout, resident of Rajghar, Padghari, P.O. and P.S. Godda, District Godda, Jharkhand.

¶31

15. Varsha Devi wife of Uttam Mandal and daughter of Late Shambhu Rout, resident of Village Chora, P.O. and P.S. Pirpainti Barhat, District Bhagalpur, Bihar.

¶32

16. Bhawani Devi wife of Sapan Rout and daughter of Late Shambhu Rout, resident of Bhaiyadih, P.O. and P.S. Sarwan, District Deoghar, Jharkhand .... Opposite Parties

¶33

¶34

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶35

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate :- Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For O.P. Nos.2 & 4 to 8 :- Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate :- Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate For O.P. No.1 :- Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate ----

¶36

09 /11.02.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned

¶37

counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 and

¶38

learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1.

¶39

--2--

¶40

C.M.P. No. 318 of 2024

¶41

2. The Notice upon the opposite party No.3 is found to be validly served and the notice upon opposite party Nos.9 and 12 have been served through family members which is recorded in the order dated 22.11.2024.

¶42

3. Opposite Party Nos.9 to 16 are found to be proforma opposite parties and in view of that the notice upon them have been dispensed with by order dated 22.11.2024.

¶43

4. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 24.02.2024 passed by learned Sub-Judge (Sr. Division) – VIII, Deoghar in Original Suit No.129 of 2013 whereby the learned Court has been pleased to reject the petition dated 27.09.2023 filed by the plaintiff under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for examination of the signature of Gajadhar Rout and Shailja Nand Prasad.

¶44

5. Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit which was instituted being Original Suit No.129 of 2013 for a decree of declaration that the un-registered document dated 15.06.1975 and the registered deed of sale No.429 of 2013 is illegal, void, forged and fabricated and not binding on the plaintiffs and the cost of the suit was also prayed. He submits that on notice the defendants have appeared and filed their written statement and the suit is pending for evidence of the defendants after closure of the plaintiff’s evidence. He submits that on 27.09.2023, the plaintiffs

¶45

--3--

¶46

C.M.P. No. 318 of 2024

¶47

filed a petition under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the disputed and admitted documents to the handwriting expert for examination of signature made upon the aforesaid documents contained in Annexure-1. He submits that the rejoinder to that was filed by the defendants and the learned Court has decided the same by order dated 24.02.2024 and pleased to dismiss the same. He submits that the signature on the Parwarik Vaywastha Patra is disputed and in view of that the said petition has been filed for comparing of the signature and the learned Court has wrongly rejected the same. He submits that three documents have been relied in the nature of certified copy of the sale deed for the year 1943, xerox copy of the sale deed for the year 1943 and certified copy of Title Execution Case No.10 of 2005 along with rejoinder petition, time petition and vakalatnama have been relied upon that verification and the learned Court has wrongly passed the said order. He submits that in view of Section 45, the learned Court was expected to allow the said petition.

¶48

6. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.2 and 4 to 8 opposes the prayer and submits that the learned Court has rightly rejected the said petition considering that the contemporaneous signature and admitted signature obtained subsequent to date of disputed signature has not been brought on record and the learned Court has further rightly held that in the course of time the signature of any person can

¶49

--4--

¶50

C.M.P. No. 318 of 2024

¶51

change and for Parwarik Vaywastha Patra of the year 1975 the reliance has been placed on the signature of 1943. He submits in view of that the learned Court has rightly passed the order.

¶52

7. Mr. Lalit Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 adopted the argument of Mr. Prashant Pallav. 8. It is an admitted position that Original Suit No.129 of 2013 has been instituted for decree of declaration that un-registered document dated 15.06.1975 and the registered deed of Sale No.429 of 2013 is illegal, void, forged and fabricated and not binding on the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit the said petition has been filed and the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the same considering that the disputed signature can be compared with admitted signature which were contemporaneous and not to the admitted signature obtained subsequent to the date of disputed signature. If the signature of contemporaneous is not brought on record the learned Court has rightly passed the said order.

¶53

9. It has been pointed out in the course of the argument by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties that now the matter is fixed for argument before the learned Court. The petitioners have relied upon the three documents for signature verification being certified copy of the sale deed for the year 1943, xerox copy of the sale deed for the year 1943 and certified copy of Title Execution Case No.10 of 2005 along with rejoinder petition, time petition and vakalatnama. In this regard, reference may be

¶54

--5--

¶55

C.M.P. No. 318 of 2024

¶56

made to the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Byalla Devadas versus Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao reported in 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 53 wherein at paragraph No.9, it has been held as under :-

¶57

9. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the orders passed by a learned Judge in P. Padmanabhaiah v. G.Srinivasa Rao AIR 2016 AP 118 (FB) the case of Dara Srinivasa Rao‟s case (referred (2) supra). In P.Padmanabhaiah‟s case (referred (4) supra), the defendant in O.S.No.324 of 2010 on the file of Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the vakalat and written statement containing his signatures along with the promissory note (Ex.A.1) for handwriting expert for comparison of his signatures on the vakalat and written statement with the signatures said to be of him on 4 AIR 2016 AP 118 (FB) NJS, J Crp_67_ 2022 Ex.A.1 and furnish a report with opinion as to the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed signatures on the said exhibits. The said application was allowed. The learned Judge of this Court while interfering with the orders of the Trial Court had extensively dealt with the matters with reference to comparison of signatures on vakalat and written statement with the disputed documents, inter alia, held as follows:-

¶58

"In the well-considered view of this Court, the defendants signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard as according to the plaintiff even by the date of the filing of the vakalat the defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in regard to the denial of his signatures on the suit promissory note and the endorsement thereon and as the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant might have designedly disguised his signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be ruled out prima facie. The view point being projected by the plaintiff

¶59

--6--

¶60

C.M.P. No. 318 of 2024

¶61

that if the defendant is called upon to furnish his signatures in open Court, he might designedly disguise his signatures while making his signatures on papers in open court is also having considerable force and merit. Unless the defendant makes available to the Court below any documents, with his signatures, of authentic and reliable nature more or less of a contemporaneous period, and unless such documents are in turn made available to the expert along with the suit promissory note, the expert will not be in a position to furnish an assured opinion, in the well considered view of this Court. .........There is no point in sending to an expert the documents of doubtful nature and character and add one more piece of unreliable evidence and burden the record by wasting the time and money of the parties. When there are no signatures of comparable and assured standard on the material record before the trial Court, it is unsafe to obtain the signatures of the defendant in open Court and send the said signatures and also his vakalat and written statement to an expert for obtaining his opinion after comparison of the signatures thereon with the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note, as any such opinion obtained from a handwriting expert on such material is not going to be of any help to the trial Court in effectively adjudicating the lis more particularly in the light of the admitted legal position that expert's opinion evidence as to handwriting or signatures can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence."

¶62

10. Admittedly, on a signature of 1943 on the basis of plaint rejoinder and the vakalatnama of 2005 that too of photocopy and certified copy the said has been sought to be examined on behalf of the petitioners and by way of mechanical process does not show the accuracy on the ground of signature, defected photocopy, therefore, such comparison is impermissible under law and there is every possibility of change of signature due to passage of time and there

¶63

--7--

¶64

C.M.P. No. 318 of 2024

¶65

is every possibility to sign on the document in disguise so as to obtain a favourable opinion from handwriting expert. What is required as per law is that any authentic contemporaneous document containing signature of the parties to be reflected along with disputed signature for comparison.

¶66

11. Section 45 of the Evidence Act enable the Court to obtain the opinion of an expert on various aspects, including the one relating to the comparison of disputed signatures. Further an expert would be in a position to render his opinion, only when the original of the document containing the disputed signature is forwarded to him. Further, there can be effective comparison and verification of the signatures, if only another document containing the undisputed signatures of the contemporary period are made available to the expert. These analysis would become possible only vis-a-vis an original signature: and the signature mark: on a xerox copy of a document can never constitute the basis.

¶67

12. For the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order, as such this petition is dismissed.

¶68

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Sangam/

A.F.R.

--8--

C.M.P. No. 318 of 2024

Gopal Rout Alias Gopal Prasad Rout v. Gopi Rout

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Rout Alias Gopal Prasad Rout v. Gopi Rout

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babita Devi Alias Babita Kumari Pandey Alias Babita Pandey Vs Munna Kumar

Bhaskar Dutta Vs Milanee Club through Its President Sri S S Bhattacharjee

Sanjay Kishore Sahay Vs Arjun Oraon

Ram Kumar Sao Alias Sahu Vs Bandhu Sao

Aditya Narain Gupta Vs Kalindi Gupta

Meena Devi Vs Gita Devi