IMPORTANT POINT
The specific allegation of forgery in a will requires expert examination of signatures, and compliance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The defendant has filed an application being GA No. 11 of 2023 praying for a direction upon the Manager, State Bank of India, Southern Avenue Branch for production of the documents lying in the bank locker of the deceased Krishna Mazumder so that the said document can be sent to the expert as admitted signatures of the deceased for comparison of the signatures of the deceased appearing in the alleged last Will and Testament of the Testator dated 8th March, 2016.

2. The defendant had filed another application being GA No. 12 of 2023 praying for appointment of handwriting expert to examine the disputed signature of Krishna Mazumdar appearing in the alleged Will with the admitted signature of the deceased. The plaintiff has initially filed an application being PLA No. 310 of 2016 for grant of probate of the last Will and Testament of the deceased Krishna Mazumdar dated 8th March, 2016. On receipt of caveat and affidavit in support of the caveat, the PLA No. 310 of 2016 is converted to Testamentary Suit No. 23 of 2017.

3. The plaintiff had examined two witnesses to prove the Will i.e. the attesting witnesses of the Will. The defendant in the affidavit in support of the caveat has taken the defence that the alleged Will dated 8th March, 2016 is entirely fake, frivolous, concocted and manufactured. The defendant has further stated that the signature appearing in the alleged Will is not the actual signature of the deceased Krishna Mazumdar.

4. The defendant says that an expert is to be appointed to obtain a report as to whether the signature appearing in the alleged Will is of the deceased Krishna Mazumdar or not. The defendant says that the genuine signature of the Testatrix is available in the original Deed of Conveyance which is an admitted document and the said deeds are lying in the locker of the deceased Krishna Mazumdar at State Bank of India, Southern Avenue Branch, Kolkata and the same is to be placed before the expert for comparing the admitted signature and the signature appearing in the alleged Will.

5. Learned Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgment reported in (2019) 11 SCC 415 (Rama Avatar Soni vs. Mahanta Laxmidhar Das & Ors.) and submitted that scientific investigation of the document in question facilitates the ascertaining of truth, an expert is required to be appointed.

6. Per contra, Learned Advocate for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has proved the Will by examining two witnesses, who are the attesting witnesses of the Will and both the witnesses have categorically stated that the said Will was executed by the Testatrix in their presence on 8th March, 2016 by appointing the plaintiff as Executor. The plaintiff says that the plaintiff has proved the Will in terms of the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

7. The plaintiff says that the defendant has not made any cross-examination of the attesting witnesses of the plaintiff by denying the signature of the Testatrix in the Will. The plaintiff says that in the application, the defendant had also not made out any ground as to why an expert is to be appointed.

8. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon a judgment reported in (1992) 2 SCC 507 (Guro (Smt) vs. Atma Singh & Ors.) and submitted that it is well settled that the mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement prescribed in the case of a Will by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

9. The defendant relied upon the judgment reported in 1992 SCC OnLine Mad 368 (R. Muniswamy & 6 Ors. vs. P. Pandiarajan & 3 Ors.) and submitted that the comparison can be made either by a witness acquainted by hand writing or by an expert witness skilled in deciphering handwriting, or without the intervention of any witnesses at all, by jury themselves, or in the event there being no jury, by the Court. He submits that it is not essential that the handwriting expe