Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 683 (AP)

Chidara Uma Maheshwar Rao v. Methuku Janardhan

2013-08-23

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2013
JUDGMENT : This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order, dated 09.04.2013, in I.A.No.320 of 2013 in O.S.No.78 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Warangal. The respondent filed the above-mentioned suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner is the defendant in the said suit. After completion of evidence on the plaintiff’s side, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.320 of 2013 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1897 (for short ‘the Act’) for sending the said agreement of sale for opinion of a Handwriting expert. This application was dismissed by the lower Court by order, dated 09.04.2013. A perusal of the order of the lower Court shows that rejection of the petitioner’s application was based on the judgments of this Court in Uttamchand Sarma Vs. Jasti Chinna Veerabhadra Rao (2004 ALD (NOC) 55), Kaveti Sarada Vs. Vemineni Hymavathi (2006(4) ALD 460), Pamu Padmavathi Vs. Perati Yakub Reddy ( 2008(2) ALT 483 ) and Lagadapati Dhanalakshmi and others Vs. Lagadapati Anjaneyulu ( 2009 (5) ALD 542 ). These judgments held that the expert’s opinion does not bind the Court and that the Court can arrive at its own conclusion on the genuineness or otherwise of the documents based on the evidence on record and also its own opinion on comparison of the signatures under Section 73 of the Act. Upon considering these judgments, the lower Court has concluded that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is available on record, besides the availability of the admitted signatures of the defendant in the vakalatnama and the written statement and that the Court can consider the evidence and also compare the signatures before coming to a conclusion on the genuineness or otherwise of the said agreement of sale. Sri T.S.Anand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Amalendu Kumar Bera Vs. The State of West Bengal (2013 AIAR (Civil) 419) and Garre Mallikharjuna Rao (D) by LRs and others Vs. Nalabothu Punniah (2013 AIAR (Civil) 416) and submitted that comparison of the signatures by the Court itself is a risky proposition and therefore, the lower Court ought to have sent the said document for an expert’s opinion. The State of West Bengal (2013 AIAR (Civil) 419) and Garre Mallikharjuna Rao (D) by LRs and others Vs. Nalabothu Punniah (2013 AIAR (Civil) 416) and submitted that comparison of the signatures by the Court itself is a risky proposition and therefore, the lower Court ought to have sent the said document for an expert’s opinion. As held in a catena of judgments, some of which were referred by the lower Court in the order under revision, the opinion of an expert does not bind the Court. Under Section 73 of the Act, the Court itself can compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures. Even in Amalendu Kumar Bera (supra), on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court held that there is no legal bar to prevent the Court from comparing signatures or hand writing, by using its own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing and then form an opinion by applying its own observation to conclude whether the signatures or the handwritings to be the same or different, as the case may be. The Supreme Court has however left a note of caution that the Court cannot itself become an expert in this regard and must refrain from playing the role of an expert, for the simple reason that the opinion of the Court may also not be conclusive. The Supreme Court further held that when the Court takes such a task upon itself, and findings are recorded solely on the basis of comparison of signatures or handwritings, the Court must keep in mind the risk involved, as the opinion formed by the Court may not be conclusive and is susceptible to error, especially when the exercise is conducted by one, not conversant with the subject. It was further held that the Courts, therefore, as a matter of prudence and caution should hesitate or be slow to base its findings solely upon the comparison made by it. This judgment has not laid down as a proposition that the Courts cannot compare the signatures themselves or that in every case they must send the disputed documents for an expert’s opinion, merely because one of the parties makes such a request. This judgment has not laid down as a proposition that the Courts cannot compare the signatures themselves or that in every case they must send the disputed documents for an expert’s opinion, merely because one of the parties makes such a request. However, it has cautioned the Courts that the opinion arrived at on such comparison alone shall not constitute a basis for arriving at a conclusion regarding the nature of the document. As noted herein before, the lower Court has observed that there is already evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 available on record. From this, it is clearly implied that the lower Court does not want to rely solely upon the comparison of the signatures in adjudicating upon the nature of the document, but it would like to appreciate the evidence also before rendering conclusive findings on the document. The lower Court exercised its sound discretion in declining to send the document for expert’s opinion. Therefore, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order of the lower Court warranting interference with the same. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, order, dated 19.06.2013 is vacated and C.R.P.M.P.No.3230 of 2013 dismissed as infructuous.