Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 765 (GAU)

LALTHANGFALA v. C. LALTANPUIA

2018-05-09

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the respondent No. 2. 2. The matter relates to non-payment of loan amount of Rs. 2 lakhs by the appellant to the respondent No. 1 and the issue to be decided is whether the appellant had given his signature on the forwarding letter of the assignment note of the Life Insurance Policy No. 0051833571, issued by the Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and other documents. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 in Civil Suit No. 68/2009, is that the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from the respondent No. 1 with a promise to repay the same within a period of one year. The appellant mortgaged his Insurance Policy No. 0051833571 in favor of the respondent No. 1 as security for the said loan. The loan was to be repaid within a period of one year, failing which, the matured value of the Insurance Policy would be taken by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 has stated in the Civil Suit that as the appellant did not repay the loan amount, the matured value of the Insurance Policy was to be given to the respondent No. 1 and in this respect, the appellant had put his signature on documents which was to allow the respondent No. 1 to receive the matured value of the assignment note, which was accepted by the respondent No. 2. 4. The Trial Court had also passed the impugned Judgment & Order dated 02.11.2011 in Civil Suit No. 68/2009 decreeing that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to be paid the matured valued of the Insurance Policy issued by the respondent No. 2, on the basis of "Pawisa Puka Intiamna" document and the forwarding letter to the assignment note signed by the appellant and which was accepted by the respondent No. 2. 5. The appellant has challenged the impugned Judgment & Order, solely on the ground that the appellant did not give his signature to the "Pawisa Puka Intiamna" document (Pg. 6 of the Paper book) letter dated NIL (Pg. 8 of the Paper Book) and the assignment note (Pg. 9 & 10 of the Paper Book). 6. 5. The appellant has challenged the impugned Judgment & Order, solely on the ground that the appellant did not give his signature to the "Pawisa Puka Intiamna" document (Pg. 6 of the Paper book) letter dated NIL (Pg. 8 of the Paper Book) and the assignment note (Pg. 9 & 10 of the Paper Book). 6. As the question that had to be decided was whether the signatures given by the appellant in the Pawisa Puka Intiamna document, letter dated Nil and assignment notes were the bonafide signatures of the appellant, this Court passed an Order dated 24.01.2018, the operative portion of which is reproduced below :- "Accordingly, the Director-cum-Chemical Examiner, Forensic Science Laboratory, Aizawl Mizoram is directed to examine whether the signatures appearing as "John" in Page Nos. 6, 8, 9 & 10 of the paper book tallies with the signature given in the Life Insurance Policy issued by the Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and other official documents of the appellant and whether those signatures are the signatures of the appellant. The appellant Sh. Lalthangfala, S/o Rangkunga (L), Maubawk is working as a Veterinary Field Assistant in the Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department, Aizawl. The Director-cum-Chemical Examiner, Forensic Science Laboratory, Aizawl Mizoram is directed to also obtain the signatures of the appellant Sh. Lalthangfala given by him in the official records kept in the Vety Department and after making examination of the same, he should give a report as to whether the signatures given as "John" in Page Nos. 6, 8, 9 & 10 of the Paper Book are the signatures of Sh. Lalthangfala. The Registrar, Aizawl Bench is directed to give a copy of this order to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory along with the copies of Page Nos. 6, 8, 9 & 10 of the paper book and the original copy of the Life Insurance Policy, which has been submitted today by the counsel for the respondent No. 1 and placed in the record, to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. In the event the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory requires the original copies of Page Nos. 6, 8, 9 & 10, the Registry shall give a copy of the same, if available in the records. The appellant shall also appear before the Director, FSL, whenever called for, to give his signature samples or for any other purpose connected with the examination of his signature. 6, 8, 9 & 10, the Registry shall give a copy of the same, if available in the records. The appellant shall also appear before the Director, FSL, whenever called for, to give his signature samples or for any other purpose connected with the examination of his signature. The FSL report should be sent to the Registrar of this Court, on or before the next Court date." 7. In pursuance to the Order dated 24.01.2018, the Forensic Science Laboratory, Mizoram examined the signatures in the documents mentioned in the Order dated 24.01.2018 and submitted the expert opinion of signatures dated 27.02.2008, issued by Sh. R. Vanlalkima, Assistant Director and Smt. Mary Lalziki, Junior Scientific Officer of the FSL, Mizoram. The said expert opinion of signatures dated 27.02.2014 was forwarded to this Court vide forwarding letter dated 27.02.2018, issued by the Director-cum-Chemical Examiner, Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory, Mizoram, Aizawl. The evidence of the Director-cum-Chemical Examiner and Shri. R. Vanlalkima, Assistant Director, Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory, Mizoram, Aizawl was recorded on 02.05.2018. They were also cross examined by the counsel for the appellant. The Director-cum-Chemical Examiner, Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory, Mizoram stated in his evidence that he had forwarded the signature examination report, expert opinion of signatures dated 27.02.2018 to the Deputy Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench vide letter dated 27.02.2018. The letter dated 27.02.2018 was issued by the Director was exhibited as Exhibit-A and his signature was also exhibited as Exhibit A-1. 8. The evidence of Shri. R. Vanlalkima, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Mizoram, Aizawl is to the effect that after examining the signatures in the documents, i.e., Pawisa Puka Intiamna, letter dated Nil and assignment note, he came to the conclusion that the same was signed by the appellant. In his evidence, Shri. R. Vanlalkima also stated that the Junior Scientific Officer, Smt. Mary Lalziki re-examined the signatures and came to the same conclusion as Shri. R. Vanlalkima. Though there was some discrepancy in the cross examination of Shri. R. Vanlalkima, inasmuch as, he had stated that the conclusions arrived that are in the form of opinion and cannot be said to be final or conclusive proved, he had denied that there was no certainty that the signatures were not of the appellant. 9. Though there was some discrepancy in the cross examination of Shri. R. Vanlalkima, inasmuch as, he had stated that the conclusions arrived that are in the form of opinion and cannot be said to be final or conclusive proved, he had denied that there was no certainty that the signatures were not of the appellant. 9. The evidence of Shri. R. Vanlalkima is to the effect that he has been working in the FSL, Mizoram as a hand writing expert since the year, 2004 and his educational qualification is MAC Forensic. In the cross examination of Shri. R. Vanlalkima, he had stated that It is not a fact that there is a possibility of coming to a different finding in respect of the documents under examination by another expert. It is not a fact that the opinion which I have given and the details given therein under Exhibit-B are not reliable for the purpose of deciding whether the questioned signatures were actually the signatures of the appellant. It is not a fact that I am deposing falsely before the Honble Court today. 10. The expert opinion of signatures dated 27.02.2018 was exhibited as Exhibit-B and his signature was also exhibited as Exhibit B-1. The evidence of Shri. R. Vanlalkima is the evidence of an expert and a reading of the entire evidence given by him is to the effect that the signatures in the Pawisa Puka Intiamna document, letter dated Nil and assignment note are the signatures of the appellant. The records also show that there is no dispute to the fact that the Bajaj Alliance Policy and the assignment note were in the possession of the respondent and there is no allegation by the appellant that the said documents were taken away forcibly by the respondent from the appellant. Accordingly, the above also gives credence to the fact that the assignment note had been made in favour of the respondent by the appellant. In the case Fakhruddin Vs. State of M.P, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1326 , the Apex Court had held that where an experts opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert then come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person. State of M.P, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1326 , the Apex Court had held that where an experts opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert then come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person. This is not to say that the Court must play the role of an expert but to say that the Court may accept that fact proved only when it had satisfied itself on its own observation that it is safe to accept the opinion either of the expert or other witness. On a perusal of the various documents and the signatures allegedly made by the appellant, this Court is also of the opinion that the said signature seem to be those of the appellant. Accordingly, this Court accepts the opinion of the experts and the report made by them, which is to the effect that the signatures they have examined have been made by the appellant. Though experts opinion should be received by caution, the opinion of the experts cannot be brushed away lightly. 11. In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity with the Judgment & Order dated 02.11.2011 and Decree dated 02.11.2011, passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-I in Civil Suit No. 68/2009. 12. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Send back the LCRs.