Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18902

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4907

RSA No. 5253 of 2009

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5253 OF 2009 (SP)

BETWEEN
RAMAPPA YALLAPPA MULLUR,
AGED 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ: NARGUND,
DIST: GADAG-582207.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SUNITA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)

AND
VEERAPPA @ IRAPPA
S/O. SANNAMALLAPPA MULLUR,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ: NARGUND,
DIST: GADAG-582207.
(SINCE DECEASED ON 09.07.2017,
REPRESENTED BY HIS SON R1(A) AND
TWO DAUGHTERS R1(B) AND R1(C))
R1(A) GURUNATHA
S/O. VEERAPPA MULLUR,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. JAGAPUR, HUNASIKATTI,
TQ: NARGUND, DIST: GADAG-582207.
R1(B) SMT. GANGAVVA
W/O. MALAPPA KALASANNAVAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. CHIKANARAGUND, TQ: NARGUND,
DIST: GADAG-582207.
R1(C) SMT. SAROJINI
W/O. SHRISHAILAPPA PUJARI @ SAUNSHI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. ANGUND, TQ: RAIBAGI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591317.
(AMENDED CAUSE TITLE AS
PER ORDER DATED 19.01.2024)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-C))

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sunita P. Kalasoor
For the Respondents: B.V. Somapur

A court should not assume the role of a handwriting expert under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Making a decision solely on the judicial comparison of signatures, especially when contested by the defendant and lacking expert corroboration, renders the findings erroneous and unsustainable.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Specific performance - Execution of sale agreement - Proof of execution - Burden of Proof - Burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the due execution of the agreement and payment of consideration amount when the defendant denies the signature and the document execution in its entirety. (Paras 26, 28)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 73 - Power of Court to compare signatures - Court should not assume role of handwriting expert - Comparison of disputed signatures by the Court without expert opinion should be a measure of last resort and is hazardous to rely on solely as the basis for a decision in serious matters. (Paras 34, 35, 36, 39)

Facts of the case:
The suit sought specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 25.08.2003 alleging receipt of 99.8% of the consideration by the defendant. The defendant denied the execution, signature, and receipt of money, contending the agreement was forged and concocted for unlawful gain. The Trial Court decreed the suit, which was upheld by the First Appellate Court.

Findings of Court:
The Courts below erred in relying upon the comparison of signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act without expert assistance. The evidence of witnesses was found contradictory and insufficient to establish the transaction, as the alleged attestors were not properly identified. The Appellate Court failed to independently appreciate the evidence.

Issues: 1. Whether the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence regarding the execution of the sale agreement. 2. Whether the Court's comparison of signatures under Section 73 without expert testimony was legally sound.

Ratio Decidendi: When a party denies the execution of an agreement and the identity of signatures, the Court must not act as a handwriting expert. Reliance on Section 73 of the Evidence Act for signature comparison should be a measure of last resort and should be corroborated by expert testimony. Failing to produce evidence of payment and relying on flawed witness accounts renders the decree based on such findings erroneous.

Result: Appeal allowed; decree of courts below set aside.

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18/07/2006 IN O.S.NO.18/2005 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN) AND J.M.F.C. NARGUND AND ALSO TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.154/2006 DATED 17/01/2009. PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION GADAG AND ALLOW THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 17.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

CAV JUDGMENT

1. Appellant/defendant has filed this appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C., praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2009 in R.A.No.154/2006 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Gadag by confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2006 in O.S.No.18/2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Nargund.

2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before trial Court for sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The plaintiff has filed the suit before trial Court praying for the specific performance of the agreement dated 25.08.2003, wherein defendant agreed to sell suit schedule property bearing 223/3A, 35 guntas on eastern side for a sum of ₹.50,000/- by receiving an advance earnest money of ₹.49,900/- and agreed to execute sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration amount of ₹100/-. It is further pleaded in the plaint that defendant was in dire need of amount for repayment of his dues with the bank and society and thus, on 25.08.2003, he agreed to sell the suit schedule property before elders and after receipt of the said amount, he executed the sale agreement. It was agreed between parties that the defendant should repay loan amount with the bank and society immediately and get the mortgage of bank and society cleared and then, executed immediately after clearance of such mortgage (Bhoja). The defendant even though took the amount for said purpose, he has misutilised the amount and did not clear the loans of bank and society and not obtained clearance certificate. During all these days, plaintiff was demanding defendant to obtain clearance certificate and to execute sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration amount of ₹.100/-, but defendant postponed the same on one or the other pretext. Now the plaintiff came to know that defendant is intending to sell suit schedule property to some other properties taking undue advantage of continuing his name in record of rights. Hence, filed the suit for appropriate reliefs.

4. Defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement, wherein he denied the entire plaint averments in toto and contended that the signature on the alleged sale agreement is not his and it is forged and concocted one. Defendant has not at all executed any agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff and nothing has been received by the defendant from the plaintiff much less ₹.49,900/-. The document relied by the plaintiff is a forged document and is concocted to achieve the illegal purpose of plaintiff to make unlawful gain. He further took the contention that, it is imaginary that plaintiff has paid the entire amount by retaining a meager amount of ₹.100/- is an unbelievable story. Plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. He has filed the suit to make unlawful gain with malicious intention by creating a document by forging the signature of the defendant. He denied that he has obtained loan from any bank or society and only after clearance of said loan of bank and society, he agreed to sell suit schedule property to plaintiff. Hence, prayed for dismissal of suit with exemplary costs of ₹.10,000/-.

5. From the above facts, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

i) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendant agreed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18902

A court should not assume the role of a handwriting expert under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Making a decision solely on the judicial comparison of signatures, especially when contested by the defendant and lacking expert corroboration, renders the findings erroneous and unsustainable.

Cases Referred (1)