Court Doesn't Have Skill, Expertise To Match Signatures In Documents Produced Before It, Should Obtain Handwriting Expert Opinion: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that a court does not have the skill or the expertise to match signatures in the documents produced before it and must obtain the opinion of a handwriting expert instead of perusing them with bare eyes.

While dealing with a case of rejection of application for handwriting expert to verify signatures made in Gurumukhi by the Small Causes Court, Justice Ajit Kumar held

“In the circumstances, therefore, the Court itself cannot be considered to be having the needed expertise and skill to match the signatures on various documents produced before the Court.”

Revisionist was a tenant of the erstwhile landlady Harbhajan Kaur whose son Sardar Devendra Singh allegedly issued the rent receipts in his mother's name. The issue before the Small Causes Court was that the revisionist had to prove that arrears of rent had been cleared. For that, she tried to prove the rent receipt of Rs. 16,000 which was signed by Sardar Devendra Singh in his mother's name.

Counsel for revisionist pleaded that Sardar Devendra Singh was not cross examined on his statement that his signatures were not the receipt. It was argued that instead of calling of expert opinion in matching the signatures which were in Gurumukhi, the Small Causes Court rejected the application for hand writing expert. It was further argued that since the defendant's evidence had not been taken yet, the application for handwriting expert could not be rejected on grounds of being filed belatedly.

Per contra, counsel for opposite party argued that Harbhajan Kaur had died in 2015 so there was no occasion for receipts to have been issued in her name in 2019. It was argued that the revisionist had failed to produce any receipts proving payment of rent to any successor of Harbhajan Kaur.

The Court observed that though there was no mention of date of death of Harbhajan Kaur, it was pleaded in the written statement that even when she was alive the receipts were issued by her son in her name.

It was observed that questions regarding receipts singed by the son during and after the lifetime of Harbhajan Kaur were complex questions which required determination of the core issue regarding Harbhajan Kaur's signature.

“All these are complex questions of fact which needed to be determined but the core issue germane to the controversy has been whether the last receipt also bore the signature of Harbhajan Kaur and if the handwriting expert gives opinion that all the signatures are with the same flow of handwriting then there would be a valid defence set up by the petitioner that he was not in arrears.”

In O. Bharathan v. K. Sudhakaran and another, the Apex Court had held that though there is no bar on the judge examining handwritings, opinion of an expert should be taken as a matter of caution and prudence.

“In the present case I find that the disputed receipts which were issued in 2019 as crucial ones, that required determination as to the authenticity of signatures and thus I find it to be more appropriate for the Court to have obtained handwriting expert opinion instead of comparing the two documents by Judge's own bare eyes,” held Justice Kumar.

Accordingly, the Court directed that opinion of a government accredited certified or authorized/ recognized handwriting expert be taken and evidence between the parties must be recorded within 3 month period.

Case Title: Smt. Sunita vs. Smt Parmjeet Kaur 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 80 [S.C.C. REVISION No. - 136 of 2024]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 80

Counsel for Revisionist: Kushagra Singh,Namman Raj Vanshi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Hemant Kumar

Click Here To Read/Download Order