Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Ajay Choubey, son of Haldar Prasad Choubey – Appellant
Versus
Sushila Devi, wife of Late Haldhar Prasad Choubey – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard Mr. Rohitashya Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 1.
2. Notice upon O.P. No. 2 has already been effected and the matter was earlier adjourned with a view to provide one more opportunity to the O.P. No. 2 on 25.03.2025, however, appearance on behalf of O.P. No. 2 has not been made and further it has been pointed out that the O.P. No. 2 is the proforma opposite party, as such, this petition is being heard in absence of O.P. No. 2.
3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 28.06.2024, passed by the District Judge-VI, Dhanbad, in Original Suit (Probate) No. 02 of 2018, whereby learned court has been pleased to dismiss the petition dated 28.07.2022 filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
4. Mr. Rohitashya Roy, learned appearing for the petitioners submits that the O.P. No. 1 has instituted the proceeding for grant of probate with respect to the alleged Will dated 29.08.2012 executed by the deceased Haldhar Prasad Choubey. He submits that the O.P. No. 1 inter
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 court emphasized the necessity of expert analysis in signature comparisons, asserting that judicial evaluation without expert assistance is imprudent, particularly in will disputes.
Point of Law : Handwriting experts opinion u/sec. 45 & 73 of Evidence Act is a week evidence and court should be slow to base their findings solely on such opinion, but should apply their own mind an....
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 ruled that for handwriting comparison under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, contemporaneous signatures are necessary; reliance on outdated documents is insufficient.
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 has the authority to compare signatures without expert opinion under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Signature comparisons for authenticity must be based on original documents and not photocopies, as the latter lack sufficient detail for reliable analysis.
The main legal point established is that a plaintiff has the right to lead evidence in rebuttal when the onus of a particular issue is on the defendant.
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
