The time gap between signatures does not prevent expert comparison, and the determination of document validity is at the court's discretion.

ORDER :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

This civil revision petition is at the instance of the plaintiff. O.S.No.252 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court at Salem is a suit for permanent injunction.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that she had purchased the property on 18.11.2002. Since the defendants interfered with her possession, she was constrained to present the suit. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff had entered into a sale agreement on 11.03.2013 and had received a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- towards the said sale agreement. Subsequently, defendants 6 & 7 demanded the plaintiff to execute the sale deed on the basis of the sale agreement dated 11.03.2013. According to the 6^th defendant, pursuant to the sale agreement, the sale deed by which the plaintiff purchased the property on 18.11.2002 was also handed over to them. On the basis of these pleadings, the parties went for trial.

3. The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and the 6^th defendant as D.W.1. During the course of examination, the original sale deed dated 18.11.2002 was marked on the side of the defendants. In addition, the 6^th defendant also marked the sale agreement dated 11.03.2013 which the plaintiff alleged to be a forgery. As these two documents are said to have been executed by the plaintiff, she took out an application in I.A.No.7 of 2024 seeking for comparison of the signature found under the admitted sale deed dated 18.11.2002 with the sale agreement dated 11.03.2013.

4. This application was resisted by the 6^th defendant pleading that the time period between the two deeds is more than a decade and therefore, the said documents cannot be compared. The submission by the 6^th defendant found acceptance with the learned I Additional District Munsif at Salem who has dismissed the petition. Hence, the revision.

5. Ms.J.Prithivi relying upon the judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and others , 2016 (2) Madras Weekly Notes (Civil) 1 contends that it is not necessary that the signature must be contemporaneous in nature.

6. Notice had been ordered to the defendants/respondents. The respondents have been served, yet they have not entered appearance.

7. I have considered the submissions of Ms.J.Prithivi, learned counsel for the civil revision petitioner and have gone through the judgment.

8. Opinion of an expert in terms of Section 45 is a weak evidence.In fact, it is not even binding upon the Court. Where one party projects a document which is said to be under the signature of the other party, then the party who is relying upon the said document would have to prove the validity of the same.

9. In Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal and another , (2008) 4 SCC 530 , the Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.V.Raveendran had held that while the Court has the power to compare the signature under Section 73 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872, it is better for the Court to procure evidence from an expert so as to come to a firm conclusion on the nature of the document.

10. On the facts of this case, it is the case of the plaintiff that she became the absolute owner in the year 2002. This document has been filed as Ex.B1. The defendants project Ex.B2 in order to defeat the claim of the plaintiff stating that by virtue of an agreement entered into in the year 2013, she had handed over the possession of the property to the defendants. If such be the case, then the validity of Ex.B2 would necessarily have to be gone into.

11. It is here that I can usefully refer to the judgment of the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Full Bench while answering the reference in paragraph no.36 of the said j