This Court is of the view that the law gives discretion to the Court concerned to form an opinion as to whether it would itself compare the signatures on its own or seek an expert opinion.{Para 10}
11. This Court is further of the view that it is the duty of the
Court to compare the signature or writing and come to its own
conclusion and the same cannot be avoided by recourse to a
statement that the Court is not an expert. In fact, the evidence of
an expert is only an opinion which is not binding on the Court.
Consequently, the finding of the High Court that obtaining expert
opinion under Section 39 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is essential for determining the genuineness of the Will is untenable
in law. However, the Court has full discretion to seek expert
opinion like where it has any doubt or the writing/impression is
smudgy, vague or very light.
12. Furthermore, what was disputed and compared in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal & Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 530, was a finger impression and not a handwriting or signature. This Court is therefore of the view that the observation of this Court at paragraph no. 16 of judgment in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal & Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 530 cannot be read to mean that it is essential to examine an expert witness in all cases which involve a disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No(s). 13004/2026
GOPAL PATHAK Vs NITIN ALIAS PAPPU & ANR.
Heard Ms. Neelakshi Bhadauria, learned counsel for the
appellant and Ms. Tanya Raizada, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. Leave granted.
3. The challenge in the appeal is to the order dated 27.10.2025
passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in M.P. No.
5813/2025, by which the High Court has overturned the decision of
the Trial Court. It is pertinent to note that the Trial Court had
rejected the prayer of the respondents-tenant for sending the
“Will” in question to the handwriting expert on the ground that it
was competent to take a call on the same. However, the High Court,
by the impugned order, has held that sending the “Will” in question
to the handwriting expert is ‘essential’ for determining the
2
genuineness of the same.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the High Court
failed to appreciate that the Second Sale Deed dated 20.10.1981
expressly records that the father of the respondents was a tenant.
He emphasises that the respondents have admitted the said second
sale deed dated 20.10.1981 in their application under Section 39 of
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. He contends that the respondents
cannot be permitted to simultaneously rely upon and repudiate the
same document.
5. He points out that the application for expert opinion was
filed by the respondents four years after trial proceedings
commenced in 2020 and after recording of petitioner’s and
respondents’ evidence. He contends that permitting an expert
examination at this stage would reopen the entire evidentiary
process.
6. He submits that the approach of the High Court is erroneous as
it is the discretion of the Court whether to decide the matter
itself, or for assistance, send it to an expert and to take a final
call based on the opinion.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
“Will” was not a genuine document and thus the only remedy left to
the respondents was to make a request to the Court for sending it
to a handwriting expert for comparison, which has rightly been
upheld by the High Court. Learned counsel relied on a decision of
this Court in the case of Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal &
3
Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 530, the relevant portion being at paragraph No.
16, to contend that where there is a dispute with regard to
handwriting/signature/finger impression, the opinion or finding by
the Court could be hazardous and risky and therefore the matter
should be sent to an expert.
8. We have heard the parties at length. The short point involved
is whether it would be ‘essential’, as has been held by the High
Court, to send the document to obtain expert opinion under Section
39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 for determining the
genuineness of the Will or whether the same can be ascertained by
comparison in accordance with Section 72 of Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
72. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or
proved.
(1) In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of
the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature,
writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to
have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which
is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been
produced or proved for any other purpose.
(2)The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or
figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or
figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written
by such person.
(3)This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger
impressions.
9. Having considered the matter, we find that the impugned order
cannot be sustained.
10. This Court is of the view that the law gives discretion to the
Court concerned to form an opinion as to whether it would itself
compare the signatures on its own or seek an expert opinion.
11. This Court is further of the view that it is the duty of the
Court to compare the signature or writing and come to its own
conclusion and the same cannot be avoided by recourse to a
statement that the Court is not an expert. In fact, the evidence of
an expert is only an opinion which is not binding on the Court.
Consequently, the finding of the High Court that obtaining expert
opinion under Section 39 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is essential for determining the genuineness of the Will is untenable
in law. However, the Court has full discretion to seek expert
opinion like where it has any doubt or the writing/impression is
smudgy, vague or very light.
12. Furthermore, what was disputed and compared in Thiruvengada
Pillai v. Navaneethammal & Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 530, was a finger
impression and not a handwriting or signature. This Court is
therefore of the view that the observation of this Court at
paragraph no. 16 of judgment in Thiruvengada Pillai v.
Navaneethammal & Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 530 cannot be read to mean that it is essential to examine an expert witness in all cases which
involve a disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression.
13. We find no infirmity in the view taken by the Trial Court.
Further, what is ultimately held by the Trial Court is always
amenable to further challenge by the party aggrieved.
14. Accordingly, on a short point as discussed above, the appeal
is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The order of the Trial
Court dated 06.10.2025 passed by the 12th Civil Judge, Junior
Division, District Gwalior in RCSA No. 577A/2020 stands restored.
However, the Court observes that the matter being one of eviction,
the same be expedited and taken to its logical conclusion
expeditiously in accordance with law.
15. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
......................J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
......................J.
(MANMOHAN)
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 18th, 2026
No comments:
Post a Comment