Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
Somappa S/o Gangadharappa Rotti – Appellant
Versus
Doddabasappa Sannabasappa Honnappanavar, Since Died by LRs. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
“a. Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari to set aside the impugned order dated 15.03.2021 made in O.S.No.43/2009 on I.A.No.18, passed by Hon’ble Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gadag, at Annexure-G, consequently by allowing the I.A.No.18, filed by the Petitioner; and b. Issue any other writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of Justice and Equity.”
2. Sri.M.M.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and the relief of declaration is sought based on the will dated 15.08.1985. It is submitted that after conclusion of the trial the petitioner filed an application seeking for appointment of an expert to carry out scientific investigation to compare the signatures of the deceased Smt.Gauramma as appearing in Ex.P1 i.e., Will dated 15.08.1985 and Ex.P31, the admitted signature of the deceased Smt.Gouramma. However, the trial Court under the impugned order dismissed the application on the ground t
The court emphasized the necessity of expert analysis in signature comparisons, asserting that judicial evaluation without expert assistance is imprudent, particularly in will disputes.
The Court reinforced the principle that admitting expert testimony is crucial in disputes concerning the authenticity of wills, particularly for validating signatures and thumb impressions.
The court has the authority to compare signatures without expert opinion under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The court emphasized the necessity of expert verification for signature comparison in probate cases, particularly when authenticity is disputed and contemporaneous documents are absent.
The allowance of pre-trial applications to send disputed documents for Expert opinion is improper and constitutes a material irregularity.
The plaintiff must provide direct evidence to prove the execution of an agreement, and signature comparison is a supplementary method only when direct evidence is unavailable.
The court ruled that expert testimony on handwriting is essential in disputed signature cases, especially when coercion is claimed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
