IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 25 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 4165 of 2024 LATA Versus MEENA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pramendra Singh Thakur - Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri Pushpendra Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1, 2 and 3.

ORDER By way of this Petition, challenge is made to the Orders dated

19.01.2024 and 03.05.2025 whereby the Trial Court has rejected the request for obtaining expert opinion of Handwriting Expert on the questioned will to scrutinize and examine the signatures of testator on the will.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the testator was a Patwari in Revenue Department and earlier, the petitioners had filed application under Section 45 praying that the signature of the deceased testator be compared by a handwriting expert with the standard signatures on some revenue documents which he had signed in his position as Patwari. The Trial Court had rejected the said application on 19.01.2024 on the ground that the signatures of the testator do not indicate that these are by the same person, because only signatures are marked without mentioning the name of the person signing the said documents beneath the signatures and therefore, they cannot be treated to be standard signatures of deceased testator.

3. Thereafter, the petitioners filed another application this time praying that the signatures on will be compared with the signatures on the sale deed of the year 1988 wherein the deceased testator had signed in capacity as witness. The Trial Court has rejected the said application on the ground that since the photograph of witness is not there on the sale deed, therefore, it cannot be inferred that the same person had signed as witness on the sale deed and rejected the said application also.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Trial Court in fact, does not want to get the signatures compared and each time on one pretext or the other, the application is being rejected by the Trial Court and a person who is dead and was in government service, each and every document is being discarded by the Trial Court that such document cannot be said to have contained admitted signatures of the testator which is not proper.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent has vehemently supported the impugned Orders saying that since the petitioners failed to bring on record any standard signatures of the deceased testator therefore, no error can be found in the said orders.

6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that it is a case of disputed as to a will which has been set up by the defendants as defence in the written statement to counter the plaint assertions. The validity of will therefore arises as an issue in the suit in question.

7. As per Section 39 of BSA (corresponding to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act), where the Court has to form an opinion as to identity of handwriting, signatures etc., the opinions of experts on that point especially skilled in such science or art or in questions as to identity of handwriting etc. are relevant facts. As per Section 41 of BSA, 2023 further it has been mentioned that when the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom the document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of such person is also a relevant fact.

8. The opinion of expert would certainly facilitate the Court to arrive at its own conclusion and the opinion even if before the Court would only be a relevant fact before the Court and the defendant No.1 would still have a right to move the Court for getting expert opinion if he is not agreeable to the expert opinion which may be received by the Court upon application of the plaintiffs.

9. In State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram reported in 1979 (2) SCC 158, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that prudence requires that a Judge shall obtain expert opinion in the matters of