The Allahabad High Court has ruled that courts should not assume the role of handwriting experts while adjudicating disputes related to signature authenticity. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ajit Kumar in Smt. Sunita v. Smt. Parmjeet Kaur, set aside an earlier order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, which had rejected a plea for obtaining a handwriting expert’s opinion on contested rent receipts.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a tenancy dispute where the petitioner, Smt. Sunita, sought to establish that she was not in arrears of rent by relying on certain receipts allegedly signed by the previous landlady, Harbhajan Kaur. However, the respondents, led by Smt. Parmjeet Kaur, contended that Harbhajan Kaur had passed away on November 27, 2015, and thus could not have signed the disputed receipts dated April 12, 2019.
During the proceedings, the petitioner asserted that Harbhajan Kaur’s son, Sardar Devendra Singh, used to issue rent receipts under his mother’s name even after her demise. The tenant claimed that if the signatures on the receipts were proven to be consistent with earlier receipts issued by Harbhajan Kaur, she would not be liable for rent arrears. However, the trial court rejected the plea for a handwriting expert’s opinion and instead compared the signatures itself.
The petitioner, represented by advocates Kushagra Singh and Namman Raj Vanshi, argued that the trial court erred in rejecting the plea, as signature verification requires expert knowledge. The respondent, represented by advocate Hemant Kumar, countered that since Harbhajan Kaur had passed away in 2015, the 2019 receipts could not have been genuine and, therefore, the plea for expert verification was unnecessary.
Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The key legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial court was justified in comparing the signatures itself without expert assistance. Justice Ajit Kumar cited the Supreme Court’s rulings in O. Bharathan v. K. Sudhakaran & Anr., (1996) 2 SCC 704, and State v. Pali Ram, AIR 1979 SC 14, emphasizing the need for expert intervention in signature verification cases.
The Court reiterated that signature comparison involves complex technical analysis, and judges should avoid forming conclusions based on mere visual assessment. It observed:
“Although there is no legal bar to the judge using his own eyes to compare disputed writing with admitted writing, as a matter of prudence and caution, courts should seek expert opinion to avoid erroneous conclusions.”
The Court also noted that the signatures in question were in Gurmukhi script, making expert evaluation even more crucial. The judgment pointed out that previous receipts had consistently carried the signature of Harbhajan Kaur and questioned whether her son, Sardar Devendra Singh, had continued signing receipts under her name after her demise.
Justice Ajit Kumar emphasized:
“In matters requiring technical analysis, it is more appropriate for the court to rely on expert opinion rather than forming its own conclusions based on visual assessment.”
Decision and Directions
Setting aside the trial court’s order, the High Court ruled that the matter must be referred to a government-accredited handwriting expert to determine whether the disputed signatures were genuinely those of Harbhajan Kaur or were forged. The Court directed that:
The handwriting expert must submit an opinion within one month.
The trial court must ensure that the evidence is concluded within three months.
No unnecessary adjournments should be granted to either party to expedite proceedings.
The judgment further instructed that the handwriting expert to be engaged must be government-certified, ensuring credibility in the analysis. The trial court was directed to act swiftly in sending the documents for expert examination within two weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order.
Additionally, the Court directed both parties to cooperate fully to prevent any delays in the process. Once the expert report is received, the trial court must proceed with evidence collection and ensure that the case is disposed of expeditiously.
