A court can compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures without the assistance of expert evidence, but such comparison should not be the sole basis for a finding.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- The defendant has preferred this appeal against the reversing decision of the court below. The plaintiffs suit is for recovery of Rs. 1900/- from the defendant.

2. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was in friendly relation with the plaintiff, On 10-8-68 the defendant, being in need of money, approached the plaintiff to give him Rs. 1900/- on loan promising to repay that amount within two months. The plaintiff gave that amount to the defendant as requested, and the defendant executed the receipt Ext. 1 in favour of the plaintiff on receiving the said amount. But as he did not repay the amount as promised the plaintiff instituted this suit.

3. The defendant s case is that he did not take the aforesaid amount from the plaintiff, nor did he execute any receipt in favour of the plaintiff acknowledging payment of the said amount to him by the plaintiff.

4. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs suit on the finding that the plaintiff could not establish that he gave the said amount of Rs. 1900/- to the defendant.

5. The appellate court, on a fresh reassessment of the evidence on record and on a comparison of the alleged signature of the defendant in Ext. 1 with his admitted signatures in his written statement and other documents on record, reversed the finding of the trial court, and held that the plaintiff was successful in establishing his case that he gave Rupees 1900/- to the defendant by way of an accommodation loan and obtained the receipt Ext. 1 from the defendant in acknowledgment of the receipt of the said amount.

6. Mr. Mohapatra, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the learned Judge of the first court of appeal committed a substantial error or defect in the procedure by himself comparing the alleged signature of the defendant in Ext. 1 with the other admitted signatures of the defendant appearing in other documents on record as thereby the Judge relegated himself to the position of a witness in this case, and he could not have done so especially in view of the fact that no expert evidence was given in this case enabling comparison of the disputed signature in Ext. 1 with the other admitted signatures on record.

7. It is well settled that a finding of fact of the appellate court can be reversed or interfered with if it suffers from any substantial error or defect in the procedure. In this connection the judgment in Second Appeal No. 50 of 1975 delivered by me on 31-1-1978 : (reported in AIR 1978 Orissa 153) may be seen.

8. Sec. 73 of the Evidence Act provides that -

"73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved-

In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose."

(The 2nd and the third paragraphs of that section are not relevant.)

So it cannot be said that by comparing such signatures the Judge relegates himself to the position of a witness.

9. The propriety of a Judge comparing disputed signatures by himself has been called in question in a number of decisions. In the Division Bench decision reported in AIR 1925 Cal 485 (J. C. Glastaun v. Sonatan Pal) it has been observed that the practice of a Judge declaring whether a disputed signature agrees with the other signatures of a certain person, without the assistance of any evidence but merely on his own inspection, has been disapproved by experienced Judges in many cases. In para 30 of the Full Bench decision reported in AIR 1961 Cal 461 (Saurendra Mohan Basu v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar) it has beenheld as follows :-

"Now while it is competent on the part of a judge or a Magistrate to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signature for himself, vide S.