Whether execution of document can be proved if only signature of person on document is proved?

Under Section 67 of the Evidence Act execution of document has to be proved, which denotes a conscious act of subscribing to a document. In order to prove the execution of a document it must be shown that the person executing it consciously subscribed to it in the sense that he put his mark or signature on it after having known and understood its contents. Mere proof that the person's signature appears on the document cannot, by itself, amount to execution of the document. It is also settled that if an illiterate person affixes his thumb mark to a document, the onus to prove that the document was properly explained to the person affixing his thumb mark so as to make him understand its true import is on the person relying on the document.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramjan Khan And Ors. vs Baba Raghunath Dass And Ors. on 5 December, 1990

Print Page

Whether execution of document can be proved by proving signature on document?

 

Plaintiff has also examined the expert witness PW-3-Devendra

Parsad, the handwriting expert to establish that the family settlement

(Ex.P-1) bears the signatures of the defendant. It is the settled principle of

law that the expert evidence is only an opinion. It could just corroborate

the substantive evidence. The expert evidence cannot substantiated the

execution of the document. It is also the settled principle of law that mere

proof of signatures cannot establish the due execution of a document. So,

the expert evidence adduced by the plaintiff-appellant will not be of much

consequence to establish the due execution of the family settlement

(Ex.P-1) and to explain the suspicious circumstances surrounding it.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

 AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A No.1526 of 2014(O&M)

Date of decision : 01.12.2016

Hargursharan Singh

V

Lt. Col. Hargobind Singh

Print Page

Whether court can refuse permission to examine witness to prove disputed fact?

The Rent Control Court said that it was not

 satisfied of the competence of the proposed

 witness to prove the disputed fact. That was

 one       reason  why   the   Rent  Control   Court

 dismissed the applications. The sub-tenants

 wanted to examine the witness to prove that

 the      signatures   in  the   disputed   receipts

 belonged to PW1. The sub-tenants chose a

 tenant of the same building to prove the

 disputed signatures. He was chosen perhaps

 he might have received rent receipts signed

 by PW1. The competence of a witness to prove

 a fact is normally a matter to be decided

 after reading his evidence and not before

 his       examination unless his incompetence is

 so patent.



10.Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act reads

 thus:-



          "If a document is alleged to be signed
          or to have been written wholly or in
          part by a person, the signature or the
          handwriting of so much of the document


          as is alleged to be in that person's
          handwriting must be proved to be in his
          handwriting".




 In view of Section 67 it is obligatory for

 the       sub-tenants    to   prove   the   disputed

 signatures to be the signatures of PW1. They

 only sought an opportunity to prove the

 disputed signatures. Section 67 which deals

 with proof of signature and handwriting does

 not state the manner in which it should be

 proved. It may be proved by any kind of

 evidence. The signature of a person may be

 proved by another person who is acquainted

 with       the  signature   of   the  former.   That

 precisely was what the sub-tenants wanted to

 attempt.       They    should    be   afforded   the

 opportunity. The competence of the witness

 to prove the disputed signatures may be

 assessed after his evidence is recorded. Let

 not it be decided before he goes to the

 witness box.        The evidence need not be shut

 out. We are unable to accept the first


 reason given by the Rent Control Court to

 dismiss Exts P3 to P5 applications.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                 PRESENT:

                              MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
                                                      &
                                MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

            14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

                                     OP (RC).No. 133 of 2016 (O)
                                      

      PUSHPA JAYAN
              Vs

                    NADEERA AHAMMED
                  

Print Page

Whether proof of signature on document is proof of contents?

 Before the learned Additional Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court reliance had been placed by the petitioners on a sale-deed but the executant of the sale-deed but the executant of the sale-deed was not examined. The proof of the signature of the executant, however, was offered but that itself could not prove that contents of the sale-deed or the truth of the contents of the sale-deed. On this ground the learned Judge refused to exhibit the sale-deed. While so doing he relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court "In the matter of Mr. D, and Mr. S " 1 (1968) 68 Bom LR 226) in which it was held.

"To conclude this part of the discussion, we hold, in the first place that what has been formally proved is the signature of Abreo and not the writing of the body of the document of Exh. 26 and secondly, that even if the entire document is held formally proved, that does not amount to a proof of the truth of the contents of the document. The only person competent to give evidence on the truthfulness of the contents of the document was Abreo."

This view in fact confirms the view taken by Bhagawati J. , as he then was , in Madholal Sindhu v. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd (1954 ) 56 Bom LR 147 : ( AIR 1954 Bom 305 ).

 Further the matter is no longer in doubt because in the decision of the supreme court inBishwanath Raj v. Sachhidanand singh, , it has been held that the correctness of the contents of the letter can only be proved by examining the writter of that letter. 

Bombay High Court

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Municipal Commissioner For ... on 15 January, 1982

Equivalent citations: AIR 1982 Bom 387, 1982 (1) BomCR 819

Bench: Jahagirdar

Print Page