Vaijayanthi R.Chari Vs Geetha Raman

high courts and this high court on the position of law that the proof of genuineness of the will is concerned, the expert's opinion as to the identity of

¶45

the signature cannot be considered as relevant fact and on this aspect the

¶46

expert's opinion cannot act as a conclusive proof.

¶47

No doubt the essential requirement of the will has to be proved in

¶48

accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and the genuineness

¶49

has to be proved under Sections 68–71 of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶50

It is not the claim of the applicant that the applicant is going to rely on

¶51

only the opinion of the handwriting expert without examining the attesting witness or without establishing the compliance of mandates of Sec. 63 of the

¶52

Indian Succession Act and the proof in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

A No. 4020 of 2024

¶55

Evidence Act. Having examined the attesting witness, now by way of additional

¶56

evidence the applicant has filed this application seeking permission to send the

¶57

documents for comparison by a forensic expert.

¶58

The opinion of the forensic expert may be positive or negative.

¶59

Whatever may be the case, the evidentiary value of the opinion of the expert

¶60

under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and its scope can be better analysed

¶61

at the conclusion of the trial after allowing the parties to produce their best evidence, including the opinion of the expert. At this stage, I don't find any compelling reason to stop the applicant from taking out this application for comparing the signature in the will with the admitted signature by a handwriting

¶62

expert. Even in case the handwriting expert gives a negative opinion, the court

¶63

cannot solely depend on the opinion of the expert and the findings have to be rendered only after comprehensive analysis of the entire evidence on record. So no prejudice will be caused for the respondent.

¶64

7.The anxiety of the plaintiff to collect the opinion of the expert along

¶65

with the evidence already on record, the respondent/defendant cannot cause

¶66

hardship to the defendant. Hence the applicant /plaintiff has to bare the cost of

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

A No. 4020 of 2024

¶69

this exercise irrespective of the result of the suit.

¶70

With these limited observations and without getting into the evidentiary

¶71

value of the opinion of the expert,

¶72

(i) This application is allowed .

¶73

(ii) M/s.JP.Dhanyasree, Advocate, (Enroll No.4626/2019) , having

¶74

rd office at No.69, Room No.16, Attorney's Court, 3 floor, Leelavathi Complex,

¶75

Armenian Street, Parrys, Chennai 600 001. (Ph.No.9894236234) is appointed as Advocate Commissioner for doing the ministerial assistance for comparing the

¶76

signature in the Will dated 11/02/2015 marked as Exhibits P1 in the T.O.S.No.32 of 2022, with the admitted signature in the Settlement Deed dated 14/03/2014, registered as Doc.No.273 of 2014 in the office of Sub Registrar Chennai Central Joint I, marked as Exhibits D5 and the deed of cancellation dated 18/02/2015 registered as Doc.No.181 of 2015 in the office of Sub Registrar Chennai Central Joint I marked as Exhibits D8 in C.S.No.202 of 2018, by the scientific expert and to get his report.

¶77

(iii)The commissioner can take the original documents which have been

¶78

now produced before this Court[Ex.D5 and D8] and also the original will, for

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶80

A No. 4020 of 2024

¶81

th e purpose of handing over to the handwriting expert.

¶82