Single Judge High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition rejecting a belated application for handwriting expert comparison. The Court held the admission of signature in the written statement negated the need for such analysis.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; order of First Appellate Court rejecting the comparison application was affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.09.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
C.R.P(P.D)No. 2765 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No.16205 of 2018
V.Vijayalakshmi ..Petitioner
-Vs-
D.Annalakshmi ..Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to allow the above Civil Revision Petition and set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 31.01.2018 made in I.A.No.25 of 2017 in A.S.No.55 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Palaniappan For Respondent : Mr.C.Jagadhish for Caveator
O R D E R
The application against which the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed is an order rejecting the petitioner's request for seeking the signatures of Ex.A.1 for comparison by the handwriting expert under Order 26 Rule 10 (A) of Code of Civil Procedure. The said application has been filed during the pendency of the first appeal.
2
decree of specific performance of sale agreement dated 29.08.2007. The case of the respondent herein is that the petitioner herein has executed the sale agreement on 29.08.2007, agreeing to sell the suit property for a valid sale consideration. The petitioner herein had filed a written statement stating that the respondent herein is a money londer, who had advanced a hand loan of Rs.50,000/-, at which point of time, she had obtained her signatures in blank papers as well as certain stamp papers. In the written statement, she had also alleged that the sale agreement was forged. Subsequently, the suit came to be decreed on 25.02.2012 as against which, the petitioner herein had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.55 of 2013. After more than four years, the petitioner herein had filed an application in I.A.No.25 of 2017, seeking for sending the sale agreement Exhibit A1 to the handwriting expert for comparison of the signature in the sale agreement with certain admitted signature. The reason adduced in the said application is that the agreement is dated 29.08.2007 and the endorsement made therein have been fabricated and that the petitioner
herein had never signed or executed the documents as well as the endorsement.
that the petitioner herein had raised a specific plea in her written statement
3
that her signature was forged and that the written statement, since was drafted before the Moffusil Court, requires to be construed liberally, for which purpose he placed reliance on the two Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2007 9 SCC 641 (Des Raj and others Vs. Bhagat Ram (Dead) by Lrs. and others) and 2007 11 SCC 736 (Narain Prasad Aggarwal
(Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh).
herein before the trial Court was that the signature in the sale agreement is forged and in view of the specific plea taken in her written statement that there was a duty cast on the respondent herein, who had referred the exhibit to the forensic expert for analysis of the signature. In the absence of the same, the petitioner herein is justified in making out the present application
and the first appellate Court was not justified in rejecting the same.
hand submitted that the present application does not deserve any consideration since the application itself has been filed belatedly. According to him, the suit came to be decreed on 25.02.2012 and though the appeal was preferred in the year 2013 itself, there was no explanation as to why the petitioner has chosen to file an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.25 of 2017,
4
only on 09.02.2017. Even otherwise, the appeal has been included in the list
for final hearing and at this stage the petitioner's request need not be considered.
had categorically admitted her signature in the written statement and as such
there is no duty cast on the petitioner to take out an application to compare
the admitted signature.
the light of the submissions made by the respective counsel, the written statement filed before the Trial Court was perused entirety. Though the petitioner herein had stated in the written statement that the sale agreement
was forged, there are several averments therein, which indicates that the respondent herein had obtained signatures in blank papers, when the petitioner obtained a hand loan of Rs.50,000/- from her. It is also seen from
the written statement that the petitioner had admitted that she had signed in certain blank papers and stamp papers. It is the specific case that the respondent herein had taken advantage of her poverty and misused those signed stamp papers for filing the Suit.
5
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2007 9 SCC 641 (Des Raj and others Vs. Bhagat Ram (Dead) by Lrs. and others) which was also relied upon in a subsequent Judgment reported in 2007 11 SCC 736 (Narain Prasad
Aggarwal (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) . The finding of the Apex Court therein is to the effect that a Plaint in Moffusil Court must be liberally construed and the pleadings requires to be taken as a whole. By applying such a ratio and when the written statement was construed in its entirety, I am constrained to hold that the petitioner herein intended to state before the trial Court that she did sign certain papers before the respondent herein when she obtained the loan and there is no indication in the written statement whatsoever to the effect that such a signature was forged by the respondent herein. Though there is a stray averment that the document is forged, on a perusal and appreciation of the entire averments in the written
statement, it could only be construed that the petitioner herein never intended to state that her signature was forged by the respondent herein.
Exhibit A1 for comparison of the signature therein may not arise since the petitioner had admitted her signature in Exhibit A1. As such, there is no infirmity or procedural irregularity on the part of the petitioner in not having
6
taken up the application before the trial Court for comparing the signatures in Exhibit A1 with that of the admitted signature of the petitioner.
upon two Judgment of this Court reported in 2012(3) MWN (Civil) 494 (Muthukumar Vs. Shanmugham) and 2006(4) CTC 850 (N.Chinnasamy Vs.
P.S.Swaminathan) . The relevant portions of the said Judgments read as follows:
(i) 2012(3) MWN (Civil) 494 (Muthukumar Vs. Shanmugham) :
'' 19. A perusal of the Written Statement filed by
7
the Petitioner/Defendant, in paragraph 8, indicates that his father Shanmugam expired on 21.4.1999 and after his demise, the Respondent/Plaintiff on 13.5.1999 has come to the
Petitioner/Defendant and informed that his father Shanmugam has taken a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from him, for which, his father had executed two pronotes in favour of Respondent/Plaintiff and when a demand has been made for
return of the amount, the Petitioner/Defendant has requested for two months time and the Respondent/Plaintiff handed over two Pronotes signed by Shanmugam to the Petitioner/Defendant and the Respondent /Plaintiff has come tot he Petitioner/Defendant and demanded immediate payment of Rs.1,00,000/failing which the
Petitioner/Defendant has been asked to sign in a blank paper, which has been refused by the Petitioner/Defendant. Subsequently, the Petitioner/Defendant has put his signature
in a blank paper out of compulsion of the Respondent/Plaintiff.
20. The clear-cut case of the Petitioner/Defendant,
as set out in the Written Statement, is that the Respondent/Plaintiff has utilised the blank document and he
8
has created a forged Sale Agreement and has filed the present Suit. Also, the Petitioner/Defendant has pleaded that the Plaint schedule properties are valued about more than Rs.20,00,000/- and there is no necessity for him to sell the
property for a value of Rs.3,00,000/-
21. In the instant case on hand, the
Petitioner/Defendant has specified, in the Written Statement, the circumstances under which he has affixed his signature in the blank paper. Therefore, there is no dispute as to the signature of the Petitioner/Defendant in the sale agreement. Obviously, the dispute centers around the manner in which the Petitioner/Defendant has affixed his signature in
the blank paper and also the allegation made by the Petitioner/Defendant that the Respondent/Plaintiff has created forged sale agreement utilising the blank signature. These allegations/factual aspects of the matter raised by the
Petitioner/Defendant, in the considered opinion of this Court, will have to be taken note of by the Trial Court along with the evidence of witnesses tendered at the time of trial
of the main suit. Also, the opinion of Handwriting Expert alone is not a guiding or deciding factor in finding out the
9
veracity of the Sale Agreement dated 8.5.1999. The contentions of the Petitioner/Defendant could be put the acid test of examination of attestors to the Sale Agreement and also, it is open to the Petitioner/Defendant to prove his
case in some other methods. Further, it is the primordial duty of the Respondent/Plaintiff to substantiate his case by letting in oral and documentary evidence encircling the facts
and circumstances of this case. ''
(ii) 2006(4) CTC 850 (N.Chinnasamy Vs. P.S.Swaminathan)
32.''From the above Judgments, the following principles have emerged:
authorities the Court to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature in order to come to its own conclusion.
(2) It is always safe for the Court to take the aid of handwriting expert to have the expertise to scientifically compare such handwriting with reasons.
the custody of the Courts tot he handwriting experts is a highly objectionable one and a very bad procedure.
10
(4) The proper procedure would be to permit the
handwriting expert to inspect the document in the Court premises itself in the presence of some responsible officers of the Court.
(5) If necessary, the expert may be permitted to
have photographic copies of documents in the presence of the
responsible officers of the Court.
(6) When examination of the disputed documents
within the Court's premises, is not possible due to genuine difficulties expressed by the expert, the Court has to find out the alternative way of achieving the object for the purpose of
doing justice.
(7) In such circumstances as mentioned above, the
Application has to be treated as an Application for an
appointment of the commissioner in whose presence the examination of the disputed document has to be conducted
by the expert.
(8) When the investigation cannot be conveniently
conducted within the premises of the Court and the same has
to be carried out in the laboratory of the Forensic
Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu, it is necessary
11
to appoint a commissioner to conduct the investigation of the
document in his presence.
(9) Filing Application for examination of documents
by handwriting expert at a late stage thereby protracting and
holding up the proceedings is highly objectionable.
(10) Merely because of the reasons that the Trial
Court has by itself compared the admitted signature and the disputed signature invoking Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act there is no bar or ban for the First Appellate Court for sending the documents to get the expert opinion.
(11) Expert opinion could give much more clarity
for arriving at a decision upon the truth and genuineness of a disputed document.
(12) When the defendant denies the signature in a
particular document which is very much relied on by the plaintiff, it is for the plaintiff to take steps for examination
of the disputed signature by sending the documents to a handwriting expert.''
the petitioner herein having admitted her signature in the written statement
12
and in view of the fact that there is no explanation as to why the application
came to be filed after four years from the date of filing of the appeal, I am constrained to hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the First Appellate Court in I.A.No.25 of 2017. In the absence of any merit in the
present revision, the same is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the Civil
Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed. No costs.
13. It is made clear that the observations made in the present order
is only for the purpose of disposing of this Civil Revision Petition and none of
the observations made herein shall have a barring on the outcome of the first
appeal.
20.09.2018
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
tsg/dh
To
I Additional District Court,
Thiruvallur
13
M.S.RAMESH,J.
tsg/dh
C.R.P(N.P.D)No. 2765 of 2018
20.09.2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a handwritten expert comparison application filed belatedly during appealed proceedings deserves consideration when the signature was admitted in the written statement.
Whether the admission of signature in the written statement negates the need for forensic analysis of the disputed sale agreement.
Whether the First Appellate Court's rejection of the interlocutory application was legally sustainable in the absence of meritorious plea.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Des Raj and others Vs. Bhagat Ram (Dead) by Lrs. and othersReferred¶20
2007 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
Narain Prasad Aggarwal (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶20
2007 11 SCC 736 · Who else cites this
Muthukumar Vs. ShanmughamExplained¶52
2012(3) MWN (Civil) 494
N.Chinnasamy Vs. P.S.SwaminathanExplained¶52
2006(4) CTC 850
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V.Vijayalakshmi
D.Annalakshmi
M.S. RAMESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
M.S. RAMESH
Parties & counsel
