The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that under law, it is always open for the Court to compare the signature on the disputed document with the admitted signatures of the defendant and witnesses. The Rule of prudence and caution requires that in the first place, expert opinion should be obtained for assistance, if such an opinion is not available, the Court has to compare the disputed writings and come to its conclusion.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and then executed a promissory note on the same day in favor of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same, on demand, with interest at 24% per annum. However, in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay any amount and the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had dishonest intention to default creditors attempting to sell away his properties. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit and the trial court decreed the suit. Furthermore, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the trial Court compared the signature on the pronote with Ex.C8 i.e., summons sent to the defendant through registered post. The trial Court by comparing the signature on the pronote with that of Ex.C8 and came to the conclusion that the signature on Ex.A1 pronote and the signature of the defendant on Ex.C8 appear to be one. Both parties did not take steps to compare the signatures on Ex.A1 with admitted signatures by sending the same to the expert.
The court furthermore observed that the signatures on the disputed document and the defendant's and witnesses' admitted signatures are always subject to comparison by the court, under the law. The Court must compare the disputed documents in order to reach a decision, following the Rule of Prudence and Caution which states that expert opinion must be sought first for assistance if an expert opinion is not available.
The court noted that Section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the Court to compare the disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether the writing is that of a person by whom it purports to have been written. Both parties have not opted for a comparison of the signatures by the handwriting expert.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Murari Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.
The court furthermore noted that the learned trial Judge compared the signature on the pronote with the signature of the defendant on Ex.C8 and came to the conclusion that the suit pronote was genuine one.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court are perfectly sustainable under the law and it requires no interference.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the appeal suit.
Case Title: Gunesetti Prakash Rao V. Sathi Venkata Krishna Reddy
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao
Case No.: APPEAL SUIT No.1162 OF 2001
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
