Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 865 (DEL)

SANDEEP BHARGAVA v. YADAV N. BHARGAVA

2016-02-16

VALMIKI J.MEHTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. O.A.No.50/2014 1. The subject suit is a suit filed by the plaintiffs who are the legal heirs of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava seeking inter-alia cancellation of the Release Deed dated 1.6.1971 said to be signed by late Sh. K.N. Bhargava. As per the case of the defendant nos. 1 to 3, late Sh. K.N. Bhargava did in fact execute the Release Deed dated 1.6.1971. Issues in this suit were framed on 18.5.2011 and issue no.2 framed is with respect to forgery of the Release Deed dated 1.6.1971 which is relied upon by the defendant nos. 1 to 3 and denied by the plaintiffs. 2. Defendant no.2 has filed two documents being two Dissolution Deeds dated 30.4.1968 and 30.4.1970 which as per the case of the defendant no.2 are signed by late Sh. K.N. Bhargava. Though these two dissolution deeds have not been filed by defendant nos. 1 and 3, the defendant nos. 1 and 3 admit that these dissolution deeds have in fact been signed by late Sh. K.N. Bhargava. Though plaintiff has denied the signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on these two dissolution deeds, however, the plaintiffs have claimed that the signatures on the disputed Release Deed dated 1.6.1971 be compared with the signatures on the two dissolution deeds which are admitted documents of the defendants. Defendants however contend that before documents are sent to handwriting expert for reporting as to the validity of signatures being of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on the Release Deed dated 1.6.1971, the signatures which have to be compared should be such which are admitted signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava. Counsel for the defendants argue that since plaintiffs themselves deny the signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on the two dissolution deeds, therefore, the signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on the two Dissolution Deeds dated 30.4.1968 and 30.4.1970 cannot be said to be admitted signatures and be used for preparing an expert’s report. 3. The issue is what is the meaning of admitted signatures for the purposes of being compared with the disputed signatures so that an expert can prepare a report under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 4. 3. The issue is what is the meaning of admitted signatures for the purposes of being compared with the disputed signatures so that an expert can prepare a report under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 4. Though counsel for the defendants no.1 to 3 has very vehemently argued that admitted signatures mean admitted by the parties who are wanting to send the disputed signatures for comparison with the other admitted signatures, however, on behalf of the plaintiffs, it is argued that it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to admit the signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on the two Dissolution Deeds dated 30.4.1968 and 30.4.1970, inasmuch as, the object of filing the expert report by the plaintiffs in this case is to show that there is in fact dissimilarity even between the signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on the Release Deed dated 1.6.1971 when compared to the signatures on the Dissolution Deeds dated 30.4.1968 and 30.4.1971. 5. On behalf of the defendants, reliance is placed upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G. Narayanappa Vs. Ganne Lakshmamma and Ors. in Civil Revision Petition No. 3201/2001 decided on 15.11.2001 to argue that handwriting expert’s report cannot be prepared unless disputed signatures are to be compared with the admitted signatures. 6. In my opinion, the defendants are misconstruing the expression ‘admitted signatures’ required for the purpose of preparing expert’s report under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The object of taking admitted signatures is that the person who admits those signatures cannot contend that the admitted signatures are not of the person whose signatures are admitted to be on behalf of that person i.e. by the defendants in this case and it is not that unless the plaintiffs admit the signatures, and without which, they became the disputed signatures, whereby the handwriting expert’s report cannot be relied upon and filed by the plaintiffs under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. 7. The object of preparing handwriting expert’s report is to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures of a person i.e. as admitted by the person against whom it is expected to be used. 7. The object of preparing handwriting expert’s report is to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures of a person i.e. as admitted by the person against whom it is expected to be used. It is not required in law, and no such judgment has been pointed out to me, that, admission of the signatures on the documents have to be by the person who wants to rely upon the signatures for preparing the report of the handwriting expert. As already stated above, this is because comparison of disputed signatures with admitted signatures is as against the person who is admitting the signatures, and which admitted signatures are admitted by the persons being the defendants in this case, and only who want to rely upon the two dissolution deeds containing the signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava. 8. In view of the above, I reject the argument urged on behalf of the defendants that the expression ‘admitted signatures’ for the purpose of preparing an expert’s report under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is to mean admitted signatures by the person who is seeking to file handwriting expert’s report, and in my opinion, it is sufficient if the admitted signatures i.e. the undisputed signatures are admitted or undisputed signatures as per the case of the person against whom the admitted signatures are to be relied upon. 9. Accordingly, the impugned Order of the Joint Registrar dated 7.3.2014 is set aside and plaintiffs will be entitled to file a handwriting expert’s report to show the comparison of the disputed signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on the Release Deed dated 1.6.1971 with the signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on the Dissolution Deeds dated 30.4.1968 and 30.4.1970 on which all the defendants admit that the signatures appearing on them are of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava. 10. I may note that only original of the Dissolution Deed dated 30.4.1970 is on record and there is only a photocopy of the other Dissolution Deed dated 30.4.1968, and therefore, original of the Dissolution Deed dated 30.4.1968 be filed by any of the defendants including defendant no.2 who has filed the photocopy of the Dissolution Deed dated 30.4.1968. 10. I may note that only original of the Dissolution Deed dated 30.4.1970 is on record and there is only a photocopy of the other Dissolution Deed dated 30.4.1968, and therefore, original of the Dissolution Deed dated 30.4.1968 be filed by any of the defendants including defendant no.2 who has filed the photocopy of the Dissolution Deed dated 30.4.1968. If the defendant no.2 does not file the original dissolution deed on the ground that defendant no.2 does not have the original Dissolution Deed dated 30.4.1968, then it is clarified, observed and directed that defendant no.2 in no legal proceedings or any other proceedings whatsoever including the present suit will ever be entitled to rely upon the original Dissolution Deed dated 30.4.1968. Let defendant no.2 file the original Dissolution Deed dated 30.4.1968 if the same is in power and possession of defendant no.2 within a period of four weeks from today. 11. Defendant nos. 1 and 3 can also file the original Dissolution Deed dated 30.4.1968 if the same is in power and possession of either of the defendant nos. 1 and 3 and the directions and orders issued against defendant no.2 in case of non-filing of the original Dissolution Deed dated 30.4.1968 will apply mutatis mutandis to the defendant nos. 1 and 3. O.A is allowed and disposed of accordingly. CS (OS) No.2505/2008 12. List before the Joint Registrar for further proceedings on 26th April, 2016.