Skip to content


Panchulal Vs. Ganeshilal Maheshwari - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 260 of 1969
Judge
Reported inAIR1973Raj12; 1972()WLN658
ActsEvidence Act, 1872 - Sections 3 and 73
AppellantPanchulal
RespondentGaneshilal Maheshwari
Appellant Advocate Dalpat Raj, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Parmatmasharan, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Cases ReferredBhagwan Din v. Gouri Shankar
Excerpt:
evidence act - handwriting expert--defendant denying his signature on promissory note--held, not necessary to produce hand writing expert--court should apply its mind.;it cannot be laid down as a general rule that where ever a defendant chooses to deny his signatures, the plaintiff must examine a hand writing expert to prove his case. nor is the court bound to accept the evidence of a hand writing expert produced by the defendant as true. the court has to apply its own mind to the evidence of the expert and it is open to it either to believe it or to disbelieve it. - industrial disputes act, 1947. section 2(s): [m.s. shah, sharad d. dave & k.s. jhaveri,jj] workman part time employees held, part time employees are not excluded from the definition of workman in section 2(s) merely on the..........box and proved the promissory note ex. i. the defendant denied having executed it and produced a hand-writing expert who corroborated him. the de-fendant did not admit his signatures on the vakalatnama which he had himself filed in court. the learned trial judge compared the signatures of the defendant on the promissory note with those on his written statement and the vakalatnama. and disagreed with the evidence of the expert that the formation of the letters was dissimilar. he came to the conclusion that the formation of the letters was similar, although, the defendant had deliberately disguised his hand-writing by putting the 'matra' of 'big' on the vakalatnama. written statement and the specimen signatures, whereas, in his signatures on the promissory note he had put the 'matra' of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Jagat Narayan, C.J.

1. This is a defendant's revision application under the Rajasthan Small Cause Court Ordinance. The case of the plaintiff is that the defen-dant borrowed Rs. 470/- from him on 13-10-64 and executed a pronote Ex. 1. As he did not make payment despite repeated demands, the present suit was instituted,

2. In support of his case the plaintiff himself came into the witness box and proved the promissory note Ex. I. The defendant denied having executed it and produced a hand-writing expert who corroborated him. The de-fendant did not admit his signatures on the vakalatnama which he had himself filed in Court. The learned trial Judge compared the signatures of the defendant on the promissory note with those on his written statement and the Vakalatnama. and disagreed with the evidence of the expert that the formation of the letters was dissimilar. He came to the conclusion that the formation of the letters was similar, although, the defendant had deliberately disguised his hand-writing by putting the 'matra' of 'big' on the Vakalatnama. written statement and the specimen signatures, whereas, in his signatures on the promissory note he had put the 'matra' of 'small'. He accordingly decreed the suit.

3. On behalf of the defendant, the decision of a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagwan Din v. Gouri Shankar AIR 1957 All 119, has been referred to. In that decision, it has been held that if the de-fendant chooses to deny his signatures on a document then the bare statement of the plaintiff on the point cannot be believed and that the plaintiff must, in such a case, examine a hand writing expert. With all respect to the learned Judge, I am unable to agree with the view taken by him. Section 73 of the Evidence Act permits the Court to com- pare the signature of a person with his admitted signatures. It runs as follows :--

'73. In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.

The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.

(This section applies also, with any necessary modifications to finger impressions.)'

Under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 'a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.'

4. In view of this definition, it is clear that it cannot be laid down as a general rule that wherever a defendant chooses to deny his signatures, the plaintiff must examine a hand writing expert to prove his case. Nor is the Court bound to accept the evidence of a hand writing expert produced by the defendant as true. The Court has to apply its own mind to the evidence of the expert and it is open to it either to believe! it or to disbelieve it.

5. I. accordingly, dismiss the revision application. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //