A court is empowered under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to independently compare signatures and thumb impressions to determine the genuineness of a document, and is not required to rely solely on expert testimony when forgery or impersonation is palpable to the naked eye.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 73 - Suit for declaration and permanent injunction - Impersonation and forgery of sale deeds - Trial Court dismissed suit due to absence of handwriting expert opinion - Held, Court has inherent power under Section 73 to compare signatures and thumb impressions if forgery is manifest to naked eye - Appellate court verified documents and found clear discrepancies - Impugned judgment set aside. (Paras 23, 26, 33)

(B) Suit Valuation and Court Fees - Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958 - Section 38(1) - Suit by non-executant for declaration that deed is null and void - Does not mandate ad-valorem court fee on consideration value - Fixed court fee is sufficient if plaintiff is in possession. (Paras 34-35)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff (appellant) alleged that defendants created four fraudulent sale deeds regarding his property by impersonating him and forging his signatures and thumb impressions. The Trial Court dismissed the suit for declaration and injunction, primarily citing the lack of a handwriting expert's report and improper payment of court fees.

Findings of Court:
Appellate Court found the forgery manifest upon comparing the contested documents with the original admitted sale deed. The Court held the Trial Court erred in refusing to exercise its power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Further, relying on established apex court rulings, it concluded that a non-executant in possession of property seeking declaration of non-binding deeds requires only fixed court fees.

Issues: Whether the Trial Court was correct in dismissing the suit for want of expert evidence and whether the correct court fee was paid by the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts are not obligated to refer documents to experts if tampering or impersonation is obvious on the face of the documents; the Court must exercise its authority under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare signatures and features to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Result: Appeal allowed; suit decreed.

Table of Content
1. factual background showing allegations of forgery and initial dismissal by trial court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
2. court's power under s.73 evidence act to compare signatures and detect forgery without expert report. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
3. determination of court fee applicability for a non-executant challenging a deed. (Para 34 , 35)
4. final orders and grant of permanent injunction based on proved impersonation. (Para 36 , 37 , 38)

RESERVED ON : 04.03.2026

PRONOUNCED ON: 18.03.2026

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2021 PASSED IN OS.NO. 8005/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU CITY, (CCH.NO.18) DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED/ PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

1. The plaintiff is in appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before us calling in question the Judgment and Decree dated 23.07.2021 in O.S.No.8005/2019 passed by the XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-18) (for short 'the Trial Court').

2. The Trial Court by the impugned Judgment and decree dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and injunction.

3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

4. The brief factual matrix leading to filing of this appeal are as under:

The plaintiff filed a suit before the Trial Court for the following reliefs:

a) Pass a judgment and decree, declaring that the sale deeds (1) dated 5.4.2018, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Vijaynagar, Bengaluru, as DOCUMENT No.VJN-1-00151-2018-19, (2) sale deed dated 7.12.2018 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Vijaynagar, Bengaluru, as DOCUMENT No.VJN-1-009466/2018-19, (3) sale deed dated 4.6.2018 which was registered as DOCUMENT No.VJN-1-02139-2018-19 registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru and (4) sale deed dated 16.08.2018 which is registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru as Document No.VJN-1-05165-2018-19, executed in the name of the plaintiff in favor of the name of the defendant 1 and 2 respectively are null and void and they are not binding on the plaintiff and the schedule property belonging to the plaintiff.

b) Pass a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents, henchmen or anybody claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

c) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems it fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice.

5. The plaintiff claims that he is the absolute owner of residential apartment bearing No.SF 001 (duplex house) on the eastern portion of the 2nd floor of the building constructed on the property bearing site No.20, existing Municipal No.20, PID No.38-1-20, 1st Main Road, Garden Villas Chalukyanagar, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru - 560 072, BBMP old ward No.38, New Ward No.128 which is more fully described as suit schedule property.

6. He further claims that he has purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 21.10.2015 bearing Document No.NGB-1-05421-2015-16 stored in CD No.NGBD 288 dated 21.10.2015 in the office of the Sub-Registrar Rajajinagar, (Nagarabhavi), Bengaluru executed by one N.Shanmugam.

7. He further claims that defendant No.1 herein approached the plaintiff to purchase the suit schedule property, which the plaintiff was intended to sell. Negotiations were held, wherein the sale consideration was negotiated to Rs.1,10,00,000/- (Rupees One

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9741

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAAnu Sivaraman, T.M.Nadaf, JJM Prakash – AppellantVersusPraveen Kumar A – RespondentRFA No. 1783 of 2021

A court is empowered under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to independently compare signatures and thumb impressions to determine the genuineness of a document, and is not required to rely solely on expert testimony when forgery or impersonation is palpable to the naked eye.

Cases Referred (2)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Anu Sivaraman, T.M.Nadaf, JJ
M Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Praveen Kumar A – Respondent
RFA No. 1783 of 2021