Court Lacks Expertise And Skill To Match Signatures, Should Seek Handwriting Expert's Opinion: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Court itself cannot be considered to be having the needed expertise and skill to match the signatures on various documents produced before it and therefore it should engage handwriting expert for opinion.

The Court was considering a Revision-Petition against an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge rejecting miscellaneous application filed by the tenant/ petitioner seeking for handwriting expert's opinion in respect of the disputed receipts.

The Single Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar held, "In the circumstances, therefore, the Court itself cannot be considered to be having the needed expertise and skill to match the signatures on various documents produced before the Court. The legal position in such matters has been discussed in the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in O. Bharathan (supra) where the question had arisen as to genuineness and authenticity of the signatures. The Court expressed the view that though there was no bar for a Judge seeing by his bare eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing even without the aid of any other evidence or any handwriting expert opinion but the Judge as a matter of prudence and caution should have asked for an handwriting expert opinion."

The Revisionist was represented by Advocate Kushagra Singh while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Hemant Kumar.

Facts of the Case

According to the stand taken by the Tenant, the receipts against rent were issued by the son of erstwhile landlady. He submitted that it was him who used to sign the receipts in the name of his mother and that was why even after her death, the receipts were issued in her name by her son and this receipt was for a sum of Rs. 16,000/- taken towards rent running from December 13, 2018 to April 12, 2019.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that if last receipt stands proved, then the Petitioner would not be in arrears of rent. It was also submitted by him that in the cross examination, the son of the landlady very conveniently avoided to make statement that he used to sign the receipt as only this statement had came up thus his signatures were not on the receipts.

On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there is no dispute as to the fact that the receipts were issued in the name of the mother who was the landlady and that the court was not justified in holding that even in the absence of handwriting expert, the Court itself could compare the signatures on the receipts to come to find answer to a complexed question whether receipts were signed by a person in the same handwriting in the name of another person.

It was submitted that the signatures are in Gurmukhi and therefore, the Court was not justified in rejecting the application for handwriting expert. Reliance was placed on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of O. Bharathan v. K. Sudhakaran and another, (1996).

Reasoning By Court

The Court, at the outset, was of the view that pleadings are sufficient to infer that it was the son of the landlady who used to sign the receipt in the name of his mother.

It was of the view that the question before it is whether the son of the landlady used to sign the receipts as his mother and that was how he had signed the last receipt also and the petitioner, therefore, not liable to be held in arrears of rent as he was not aware as to whether the landlady had authorized her son to issue receipt under her signature by making her signature.

"All these are complex questions of fact which needed to be determined but the core issue germane to the controversy has been whether the last receipt also bore the signature of Harbhajan Kaur and if the handwriting expert gives opinion that all the signatures are with the same flow of handwriting then there would be a valid defence set up by the petitioner that he was not in arrears," the Court observed.

It was of the opinion that the Court lacks the required skill and expertise to determine the same.

"In the circumstances, therefore, in my considered view that the Court while examining the documents itself ought to have referred the document for handwriting expert. As far as the question of delay is concerned, since the defence evidence is yet to be led by the respondent and landlord also, there would not be any point of delay in the matter if the handwriting expert opinion is called for qua signature in question upon the disputed receipts," the Court observed.

Cause Title: Sunita vs. Parmjeet Kaur (2025:AHC:16733)

Click here to read/ download Order