2011 AIR CC 2517 (MAD)

Madras High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): G. Rajasuria , J

( A ) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S. 73 , 45 — Finding on disputed signature — Assumption of role of an expert by Court — Permissible only in extraordinary circumstances — Mere subjective satisfaction of Court not sufficient.The Court is not expected to assume the role of an expert and arrive at the conclusion in one way or other relating to the genuineness or otherwise of a document unless extraordinary circumstances warrant so, and furthermore, once the Court assumes the role of an expert necessarily, the various characteristics as found recognized in the science of handwriting analysis should be referred to, so to say, at least a famous treatise on handwriting analysis should be referred to and accordingly, there should be a detailed judgment. Mere subjective satisfaction would not be sufficient. No carte blanche is given to any Court to simply look at the disputed signature with some admitted signatures and give a finding that the Court is satisfied in one way or the other. AIR 1979 SC 14, 2008 (3) CTC 470 and AIR 2008 SC 1541, Foll. (Paras14)Where the disputed signatures of the plaintiff were compared not with any ante litem motam signature and not even by obtaining any sample signatures before the Court by invoking Section 73 and the lis was decided by first appellate Court on its subjective satisfaction relating to the disputed signatures by comparing disputed signatures with the admitted signature on vakalatnama, plaint ....