Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48033
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
PUNNOOSE A.V. – Appellant
Versus
VINOD VARGHESE – Respondent
RFA NO. 18 OF 2013 | OS NO.682 OF 2009
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.VISWANATHAN, SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN
For the Respondents: SRI.ANITH JAMES, SRI.S.VINOD BHAT, SRI.VARGHESE K.PAUL
Handwriting expert testimony requires corroborative evidence to be deemed reliable; unsupported expert evidence lacks sufficient weight for case determination.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Principles of Agreement and Sale - The plaintiff alleged defendant's failure to convey property as per agreements Exts.A1 (₹1,71,86,000) and A7 (extension); suit dismissed based on lack of corroborative evidence against handwriting expert's report (Ext.C1). (Paras 2-26)
(B) Expert Evidence - The court elucidated that handwriting expert opinions require substantial corroboration and are inherently of frail character, citing precedents from various Supreme Court decisions. (Paras 6, 7)
(C) Burden of Proof - The plaintiff did not provide definitive proof of payment, thus shifting the burden onto him, reiterated by precedents concerning the best evidence rule from the Evidence Act. (Paras 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
Dispute arose over an alleged property sale where the plaintiff claimed the defendant failed to return an advance of ₹70 lakhs through agreements for sale reported to be in his handwriting. The defendant contended he had no relationship with the plaintiff and transactions only with the plaintiff's brother-in-law.
Findings of Court:
The documents were not properly executed, with contradictions in the testimonies and lack of credible evidence supporting the plaintiff's claims.
Issues: Whether the trial court's reliance on expert testimony was justified without sufficient corroboration; and whether the plaintiff proved the financial transaction involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the absence of adequate corroborative evidence and inconsistencies in the testimonies undermined the plaintiff's claims, emphasizing the frailty of expert evidence without supporting proof.
Result: Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of trial court are set aside, and suit dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. agreement for the sale of property. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. expert testimony on handwriting. (Para 4 , 11 , 15) |
| 3. reliability of expert opinions. (Para 7) |
| 4. genuineness of documents in real estate. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 5. burden of proof lies on the defendant. (Para 18) |
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
Challenging the decree in a suit for money the defendant is in appeal.
2. According to the plaintiff, on 16.01.2008, the defendant entered into Ext.A1 agreement with him agreeing to convey an extent of 53.51 ares of property to the plaintiff, in respect of which the defendant had an agreement with its owner, one Vijayan. Under Ext.A1, the total sale consideration fixed was ₹ 1,71,86,000/-. On the date of Ext.A1 an amount of ₹ 50 lakhs was paid towards advance sale consideration. The period fixed for performance was up to 18.04.2008. Subsequently, as per Ext.A7 agreement dated 18.04.2008, the period was extended by another 12 months. On the date of Ext.A7 a further amount of ₹ 20 lakhs was paid towards the sale consideration. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that the property was under a mortgage with a Bank. Alleging failure of the defendant to return the advance sale consideration, the suit has been filed.
3. The defendant denied Ext.A1. He contended that he had no transaction with the plaintiff. According to him, he had various transactions with the brother-in-law of the plaintiff (who was examined as PW2 in the suit). In October 2007 he had borrowed an amount of ₹ 2 lakhs from PW2. As required by PW2, a signed blank paper with revenue stamps affixed thereon was handed over to him. Subsequently, the defendant borrowed a further amount of ₹ 3 lakhs. At that time, it was agreed that the property belonging to the defendant (the plaint scheduled property) would be conveyed to PW2. Two other signed blank papers were also handed over to PW2 as was required by him to prepare an agreement for sale.
Subsequently, the agreement was extended under Ext.A7, on which occasion a further amount of ₹ 20 lakhs was given by PW2 to the defendant. Thus, the defendant contended that he had no transaction with the plaintiff and sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. It was the case of the plaintiff that both Exts.A1 and A7 were written by the defendant in his own handwriting. The documents were forwarded to a handwriting expert for his opinion. Ext.C1 is the report. The expert opined against the defendant. Relying on the same, the trial court decreed the suit.
5. We have heard Sri.P.Viswanathan the learned senior counsel for the appellant-defendant and Sri.Vinod Bhat the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff.
6. The points that arise for determination are:-
(i) Was the trial court right in having decreed the suit relying on the expert opinion, without considering whether sufficient corroborative evidence is available to prove the transaction as pleaded by the plaintiff?
(ii) Is the decree and judgment of the trial court sustainable on the evidence and circumstances on record?
7. According to the plaintiff, both Exts.A1 and A7 were written by the defendant himself. A reading of the trial court judgment shows that the decree is based on the report of the handwriting expert (Ext.C1). The Apex Court has, in a catena of decisions, categorically held that the evidence of a handwriting expert is generally of a frail character. Unlike the study of fingerprints, which is to be considered an exact science, a study on handwriting is not so. In Sri. Sri Kishore Chandra Singh Deo v. Babu Ganesh Prasad Bhagat and Ors. [(1954) 1 SCR 919], the Apex Court held :-
“Conclusions based on mere comparison of handwriting must, at least, be indecisive, and yield to the positive evidence in the case.”
In Bhagwan Kaur v. Krishan Sharma and Ors. ( AIR 1973 SC 1346 ), the Apex Court cautioned thus, “The evidence of a handwriting expert, unlike that of a fingerprint expert, is generally of a frail character and its fallibilities have been quite often noticed. The c
