Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 826
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
SHRI SANDEEP BHARGAVA & OTHERS – Plaintiffs
Versus
SHRI YADAV N. BHARGAVA & OTHERS – Defendants
CS (OS) No. 2505/2008
Decided On : 16-02-2016
Mr. B.B. Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Sauyam Khetrapal, Advocate.
Ms. Yukta Gupta, Advocate for defendant No.1.
Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for defendant No.2.
Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate for defendant No.3.
Mr. Asheesh Jain, Advocate for defendant Nos.4 to 10.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of admitted signatures for the purpose of preparing an expert’s report under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Headnote:
Forgery - Release Deed - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 45 - The court discussed the meaning of admitted signatures for the purpose of preparing an expert’s report under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court rejected the argument that admitted signatures must be admitted by the person seeking to file the handwriting expert’s report, and held that it is sufficient if the admitted signatures are undisputed as per the case of the person against whom the admitted signatures are to be relied upon.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved the cancellation of a Release Deed dated 1.6.1971, with the plaintiffs claiming it to be a forgery. The defendants contended that the deed was executed by late Sh. K.N. Bhargava. The issue revolved around the comparison of signatures on the disputed Release Deed with the admitted signatures on two Dissolution Deeds dated 30.4.1968 and 30.4.1970.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the argument that admitted signatures must be admitted by the person seeking to file the handwriting expert’s report, and held that it is sufficient if the admitted signatures are undisputed as per the case of the person against whom the admitted signatures are to be relied upon. The court set aside the impugned Order of the Joint Registrar and allowed the plaintiffs to file a handwriting expert’s report for comparison of the disputed signatures.
Issues: The main issue was the meaning of admitted signatures for the purpose of preparing an expert’s report under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it is sufficient if the admitted signatures are undisputed as per the case of the person against whom the admitted signatures are to be relied upon, rejecting the argument that admitted signatures must be admitted by the person seeking to file the handwriting expert’s report.
Final Decision: The O.A. was allowed and disposed of accordingly, with directions for further proceedings in CS (OS) No.2505/2008.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
O.A.No.50/2014
1. The subject suit is a suit filed by the plaintiffs who are the legal heirs of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava seeking inter-alia cancellation of the Release Deed dated 1.6.1971 said to be signed by late Sh. K.N. Bhargava. As per the case of the defendant nos. 1 to 3, late Sh. K.N. Bhargava did in fact execute the Release Deed dated 1.6.1971. Issues in this suit were framed on 18.5.2011 and issue no.2 framed is with respect to forgery of the Release Deed dated 1.6.1971 which is relied upon by the defendant nos. 1 to 3 and denied by the plaintiffs.
2. Defendant no.2 has filed two documents being two Dissolution Deeds dated 30.4.1968 and 30.4.1970 which as per the case of the defendant no.2 are signed by late Sh. K.N. Bhargava. Though these two dissolution deeds have not been filed by defendant nos. 1 and 3, the defendant nos. 1 and 3 admit that these dissolution deeds have in fact been signed by late Sh. K.N. Bhargava. Though plaintiff has denied the signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on these two dissolution deeds, however, the plaintiffs have claimed that the signatures on the disputed Release Deed dated 1.6.1971 be compared with the signatures on the two dissolution deeds which are admitted documents of the defendants. Defendants however contend that before documents are sent to handwriting expert for reporting as to the validity of signatures being of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on the Release Deed dated 1.6.1971, the signatures which have to be compared should be such which are admitted signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava. Counsel for the defendants argue that since plaintiffs themselves deny the signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on the two dissolution deeds, therefore, the signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on the two Dissolution Deeds dated 30.4.1968 and 30.4.1970 cannot be said to be admitted signatures and be used for preparing an expert’s report.
3. The issue is what is the meaning of admitted signatures for the purposes of being compared with the disputed signatures so that an expert can prepare a report under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
4. Though counsel for the defendants no.1 to 3 has very vehemently argued that admitted signatures mean admitted by the parties who are wanting to send the disputed signatures for comparison with the other admitted signatures, however, on behalf of the plaintiffs, it is argued that it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to admit the signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on the two Dissolution Deeds dated 30.4.1968 and 30.4.1970, inasmuch as, the object of filing the expert report by the plaintiffs in this case is to show that there is in fact dissimilarity even between the signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on the Release Deed dated 1.6.1971 when compared to the signatures on the Dissolution Deeds dated 30.4.1968 and 30.4.1971.
5. On behalf of the defendants, reliance is placed upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G. Narayanappa Vs. Ganne Lakshmamma and Ors. in Civil Revision Petition No. 3201/2001 decided on 15.11.2001 to argue that handwriting expert’s report cannot be prepared unless disputed signatures are to be compared with the admitted signatures.
6. In my opinion, the defendants are misconstruing the expression ‘admitted signatures’ required for the purpose of preparing expert’s report under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The object of taking admitted signatures is that the person who admits those signatures cannot contend that the admitted signatures are not of the person whose signatures are admitted to be on behalf of that person i.e. by the defendants in this case and it is not that unless the plaintiffs admit the signatures, and without which, they became the disputed signatures, whereby the handwriting expert’s report cannot be relied upon and filed by the plaintiffs under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
7. The object of preparing handwriting exp
