Delhi High Court
Shri Sandeep Bhargava & Others vs Shri Yadav N. Bhargava & Others on 16 February, 2016
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) No.2505/2008
% 16th February, 2016
SHRI SANDEEP BHARGAVA & OTHERS ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr.B.B. Gupta, Advocate with Mr.
Sauyam Khetrapal, Advocate.
versus
SHRI YADAV N. BHARGAVA & OTHERS ..... Defendants
Through: Ms. Yukta Gupta, Advocate for
defendant No.1.
Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for
defendant No.2.
Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate for
defendant No.3.
Mr. Asheesh Jain, Advocate for
defendant Nos.4 to 10.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
O.A.No.50/2014
1. The subject suit is a suit filed by the plaintiffs who are the legal
heirs of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava seeking inter alia cancellation of the Release
Deed dated 1.6.1971 said to be signed by late Sh. K.N. Bhargava. As per the
case of the defendant nos. 1 to 3, late Sh. K.N. Bhargava did in fact execute
OA No.50/2014 in CS(OS) No.2505/2008 Page 1 of 7
the Release Deed dated 1.6.1971. Issues in this suit were framed on
18.5.2011 and issue no.2 framed is with respect to forgery of the Release
Deed dated 1.6.1971 which is relied upon by the defendant nos. 1 to 3 and
denied by the plaintiffs.
2. Defendant no.2 has filed two documents being two Dissolution
Deeds dated 30.4.1968 and 30.4.1970 which as per the case of the defendant
no.2 are signed by late Sh. K.N. Bhargava. Though these two dissolution
deeds have not been filed by defendant nos. 1 and 3, the defendant nos. 1
and 3 admit that these dissolution deeds have in fact been signed by late Sh.
K.N. Bhargava. Though plaintiff has denied the signatures of late Sh. K.N.
Bhargava on these two dissolution deeds, however, the plaintiffs have
claimed that the signatures on the disputed Release Deed dated 1.6.1971 be
compared with the signatures on the two dissolution deeds which are
admitted documents of the defendants. Defendants however contend that
before documents are sent to handwriting expert for reporting as to the
validity of signatures being of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on the Release Deed
dated 1.6.1971, the signatures which have to be compared should be such
which are admitted signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava. Counsel for the
defendants argue that since plaintiffs themselves deny the signatures of late
OA No.50/2014 in CS(OS) No.2505/2008 Page 2 of 7
Sh. K.N. Bhargava on the two dissolution deeds, therefore, the signatures of
late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on the two Dissolution Deeds dated 30.4.1968 and
30.4.1970 cannot be said to be admitted signatures and be used for preparing
an expert's report.
3. The issue is what is the meaning of admitted signatures for the
purposes of being compared with the disputed signatures so that an expert
can prepare a report under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
4. Though counsel for the defendants no.1 to 3 has very
vehemently argued that admitted signatures mean admitted by the parties
who are wanting to send the disputed signatures for comparison with the
other admitted signatures, however, on behalf of the plaintiffs, it is argued
that it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to admit the signatures of late Sh.
K.N. Bhargava on the two Dissolution Deeds dated 30.4.1968 and
30.4.1970, inasmuch as, the object of filing the expert report by the plaintiffs
in this case is to show that there is in fact dissimilarity even between the
signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on the Release Deed dated 1.6.1971
when compared to the signatures on the Dissolution Deeds dated 30.4.1968
and 30.4.1971.
OA No.50/2014 in CS(OS) No.2505/2008 Page 3 of 7
5. On behalf of the defendants, reliance is placed upon the
judgment of a learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the
case of G.Narayanappa Vs. Ganne Lakshmamma and Ors. in Civil
Revision Petition No. 3201/2001 decided on 15.11.2001 to argue that
handwriting expert's report cannot be prepared unless disputed signatures
are to be compared with the admitted signatures.
6. In my opinion, the defendants are misconstruing the expression
'admitted signatures' required for the purpose of preparing expert's report
under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The object of taking admitted
signatures is that the person who admits those signatures cannot contend that
the admitted signatures are not of the person whose signatures are admitted
to be on behalf of that person ie by the defendants in this case and it is not
that unless the plaintiffs admit the signatures, and without which, they
became the disputed signatures, whereby the handwriting expert's report
cannot be relied upon and filed by the plaintiffs under Section 45 of the
Indian Evidence Act.
7. The object of preparing handwriting expert's report is to
compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures of a person i.e as
admitted by the person against whom it is expected to be used. It is not
OA No.50/2014 in CS(OS) No.2505/2008 Page 4 of 7
required in law, and no such judgment has been pointed out to me, that,
admission of the signatures on the documents have to be by the person who
wants to rely upon the signatures for preparing the report of the handwriting
expert. As already stated above, this is because comparison of disputed
signatures with admitted signatures is as against the person who is admitting
the signatures, and which admitted signatures are admitted by the persons
being the defendants in this case, and only who want to rely upon the two
dissolution deeds containing the signatures of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava.
8. In view of the above, I reject the argument urged on behalf of
the defendants that the expression 'admitted signatures' for the purpose of
preparing an expert's report under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is
to mean admitted signatures by the person who is seeking to file handwriting
expert's report, and in my opinion, it is sufficient if the admitted signatures
ie the undisputed signatures are admitted or undisputed signatures as per the
case of the person against whom the admitted signatures are to be relied
upon.
9. Accordingly, the impugned Order of the Joint Registrar dated
7.3.2014 is set aside and plaintiffs will be entitled to file a handwriting
expert's report to show the comparison of the disputed signatures of late Sh.
OA No.50/2014 in CS(OS) No.2505/2008 Page 5 of 7
K.N. Bhargava on the Release Deed dated 1.6.1971 with the signatures of
late Sh. K.N. Bhargava on the Dissolution Deeds dated 30.4.1968 and
30.4.1970 on which all the defendants admit that the signatures appearing on
them are of late Sh. K.N. Bhargava.
10. I may note that only original of the Dissolution Deed dated
30.4.1970 is on record and there is only a photocopy of the other Dissolution
Deed dated 30.4.1968, and therefore, original of the Dissolution Deed dated
30.4.1968 be filed by any of the defendants including defendant no.2 who
has filed the photocopy of the Dissolution Deed dated 30.4.1968. If the
defendant no.2 does not file the original dissolution deed on the ground that
defendant no.2 does not have the original Dissolution Deed dated 30.4.1968,
then it is clarified, observed and directed that defendant no.2 in no legal
proceedings or any other proceedings whatsoever including the present suit
will ever be entitled to rely upon the original Dissolution Deed dated
30.4.1968. Let defendant no.2 file the original Dissolution Deed dated
30.4.1968 if the same is in power and possession of defendant no.2 within a
period of four weeks from today.
11. Defendant nos. 1 and 3 can also file the original Dissolution
Deed dated 30.4.1968 if the same is in power and possession of either of the
OA No.50/2014 in CS(OS) No.2505/2008 Page 6 of 7
defendant nos. 1 and 3 and the directions and orders issued against defendant
no.2 in case of non-filing of the original Dissolution Deed dated 30.4.1968
will apply mutatis mutandis to the defendant nos. 1 and 3.
O.A is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
CS(OS) No.2505/2008
12. List before the Joint Registrar for further proceedings on 26 th
April, 2016.
FEBRUARY 16, 2016 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
