The credibility of signature denial is paramount, and expert evidence can substantiate claims regarding signature authenticity.

JUDGMENT

It is a case wherein the defendant had denied his own signature found affixed in the Vakkalath submitted by him besides the written statement submitted, while attempting to deny the signature found affixed in the disputed document, a promissory note, as that of him in the box as DW1. The legal position is settled by the Apex Court in K.S.Satyanarayana v. V.R.Narayana Rao [1999 KHC 1269). When there is denial of admitted signature in the Vakkalath and the written statement, it would prima facie show the falsity writ large on its face. Thus, the oral evidence tendered is not only liable to be rejected, but also goes against the very factum of denial of due execution.

Regarding Ext.B1 passport, the trial court rejected it on the reason that no case was advanced in the plaint that he was abroad during the year 2009. Evidence without pleading will not serve any purpose. Admittedly, Ext.B1 passport was not taken in the address at Kerala. The reason advanced by him that he is not maintaining his old address was rejected by the court below on the reason that he had received Ext.A2 demand notice in the same address and replied by showing the very same address. The expert evidence adduced cannot be rejected in view of the legal position settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Chandrasekharan Nair v. Olympic Credit Corporation [2014 (2) KLT 242], since the expert was examined in reference to the macrophotographs of the disputed and admitted signatures based on the selection of seven systematic random signatures from the specimen supplied. The chart supplied marked Ext.X1 (a) to X1 (d) were produced for scrutiny by the court, the respective counsel and the witnesses, PW1 and PW2 were examined based on it. Hence, the expert evidence adduced cannot be rejected, especially when his expertise in the field was brought in evidence. Further, the plaintiff took pain to send the disputed signature for expert examination and summoned him as a witness, PW2. It would show the elements of bonafide. The absence of proper explanation as to the source of his signature found affixed in the document would go against the very denial advanced by the defendant. The denial of his own admitted signature in the Vakkalath and the written statement would show what is behind it. Hence, there is no reason for any interference with the decree and judgment of the trial court. The appeal fails, dismissed without costs.