Signature comparisons for authenticity must be based on original documents and not photocopies, as the latter lack sufficient detail for reliable analysis.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned Counsel for the petitioners, appearing through virtual mode.

2. Since all these petitions are inter-related, this Court deems it appropriate to hear these matters together and dispose of the same by way of this common order.

3. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed OS No.1580 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam, for partition of the suit schedule properties. At the stage of arguments, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed IA No.558 of 2024, seeking to send Ex.B1 Unregistered Will, dated 02.07.2014 to expert for comparison of signatures thereon with the contemporaneous signatures of Dalli Appala Reddy available with Andhra Bank, Pithapuram Colony Branch, Visakhapatnam, as the alleged Will was said to be fabricated by forging the signatures of Dalli Appala Reddy. They also filed IA No.557 of 2024 seeking to summon the Officer, Employees Provident Fund Authority, Visakhapatnam and IA No.556 of 2024 to re-open the matter for filing applications.

4. The learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) has dismissed IA No.558 of 2024 observing that the original unregistered Will, dated 02.07.2014 was filed by the respondents/ defendants in another OS No.290 of 2018, and a certified copy of the said document thereof was filed in OS No.1580 of 2016, and marked as Ex.B1. The genuineness of the signatures could not be made by the expert on the basis of a photocopy. The learned Trial Court placed reliance in Bheri Nageswara Rao v. Mavuri Veerabhadhra Rao , AIR 2006 AP 314 and in Abhay Jain v. State of M.P. , 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1839 .

5. Consequently, the learned II Additional Civil Judge has also dismissed IA Nos.556 & 557 of 2024.

6. Challenging those orders, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed all the above three revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the signatures could be compared from photocopy.

8. In Bheri's case (supra), this Court at Paragraph Nos.4 & 5 observed as under:

"4. An expert would be in a position to render his opinion, only when the original of the document containing the disputed signature is forwarded to him. Further, there can be effective comparison and verification of the signatures, if only another document containing the undisputed signatures of the contemporary period are made available to the expert. In the instant case, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed Exs.B13 and B15, which are, admittedly, the Xerox copies of General Power of Attorney, dated 21.12.1988 and khararnama, dated 21.12.1988. It is rather incomprehensible that an expert would be able to undertake analysis of the imprint of a signature, on a Xerox copy.

5. The opinion of a hand writing expert involves the analysis of the slant, which a person uses in the matter of putting his signature, and in some cases, the point of time, at which it may have been subscribed. These analyses would become possible only vis-a-vis an original signature; and the signature mark on a Xerox copy of a document can never constitute the basis."

9. In Abhay's case (supra), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Paragraph Nos.28 to 44 held as under :

"28. It is not in dispute that in the present case both the experts have taken photographs of disputed signatures/thumb impression from the photocopy of the Will. Photocopy of document itself is neither primary nor secondary evidence. It is not advisable for experts to take photograph of photocopies and base their opinion on such photocopies. Expert should always base his opinion on original documents. When an expert forms his opinion on the