Page No.# 1/9 vs Musst Fatima Begum Laskar
2025 Latest Caselaw 7765 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/9 vs Musst Fatima Begum Laskar on 14 October, 2025

                                                                       Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010180162015




                                                                 2025:GAU-AS:13679

                           THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                  Case No. : RSA/262/2015

          MD MONJURUL HAQUE LASKAR
          S/O LATE MOHIBUR RAHMAN LASKAR, VILL. VICHINGCHA PART-II, P.O
          VICHINGCHA, P.S. and DIST. HAILAKANDI, PIN 788151



          VERSUS



          MUSST FATIMA BEGUM LASKAR
          W/O LATE ALI RAJA LASKAR, VILL. CHEPTIBROJAPUR, P.O. RANGAUTI,
          P.S. and DIST. HAILAKANDI, PIN 788155




     Advocate for the appellant         : Mr. M.J. Quadir
     Advocate for the respondent        : Mr. J. Laskar

     Date of hearing                          :     22.07.2025

     Date of judgment                         :     14.10.2025
                                                                         Page No.# 2/9



                                 BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

                          JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. M.J. Quadir, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi, in Money Appeal No. 2/2014 (1/14).

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18.08.2015, the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi ('First Appellate Court', for short) had upheld and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2013, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi ('Trial Court', for short), in Money Suit No. 18/2008.

4. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties as indicated in Money Suit No. 18/2008, is adopted herein.

5. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are briefly stated as under:

"The respondent herein as plaintiff had instituted a money suit for

recovery of a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, which was borrowed from her by the defendant/appellant herein, by executing a hand-note with a promise to return the same on demand. On her requirement, she demanded the said sum of Rs. 40,000/-, but the defendant failed to make payment of the same. Then being left with no other option, she had instituted Money Suit Page No.# 3/9

No. 18/2008, for recovery of the said amount with interest.

The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. His stand was that the suit was not maintainable and there was no cause of action, and that he had not borrowed any money from the plaintiff. The defendant averred that he owed Rs. 13,000/- only towards the price of the betel nut purchased by him and had spent Rs. 9000/- only towards medical expenses of the ailing husband of the plaintiff, and after the death of the husband of the plaintiff, he requested the plaintiff to take back the remaining sum of Rs. 4000/-, but the plaintiff refused to accept the same, and therefore, it was contended to dismiss the suit.

Upon the aforementioned pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court had framed the following issues:

(I) Whether the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.

40,000/- only from the plaintiff on executing a hand note on 02.06.2001?

(ii) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?

Thereafter, recording evidence and hearing arguments of learned counsel for both the parties, the learned Trial Court had decided both the issues in favour of the plaintiff, and thereafter, decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 45,000/-, with interest @ 6% per annum on the decretal amount, Rs. 40,000/- being the principal amount and Rs. 5000/- being the compensation.

Being aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal, being Money Appeal No. 2/2014 (1/14), before the learned First Appellate Court, and Page No.# 4/9

thereafter, the learned First Appellate Court had formulated the following three points for determination:

             (i)    Whether the learned Court below              has rightly
                    formulated    all the  relevant              issues  for
                    adjudication?

             (ii) Whether the learned Court below has rightly
                  appreciated the evidence on record to arrive at
                  just decision of the suit?

(iii) Whether the judgment dated 03.10.2014, passed by learned Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi, in M.S. No. 18/2008, is liable to be reversed and set aside.

If reversed, what is/are the relief/reliefs the appellant is entitled to?

Thereafter, hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the learned First Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal without cost."

6. Being aggrieved, the defendant has preferred this appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC. This appeal has been admitted for hearing, vide order dated 22.12.2015, on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the decision and conclusion reached by the learned court below is perverse to the evidence available on record?

(ii) Whether the learned court below committed manifest illegality in discarding the opinion of the handwriting expert obtained under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 without any valid reason and thereby arrived at a conclusion regarding validity of the signature by making a visual comparison under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Page No.# 5/9

7. Mr. Quadir, learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court, while deciding the suit, relied upon the hand-note dated 02.06.2001, which was exhibited as Ext.1, but there is no attesting witness to the said hand-note. Mr. Quadir also submits that the learned Trial Court had sent the hand-note to the handwriting expert for opinion and the his opinion reveals that the admitted handwriting and question writing are not written by the same person, but rejecting the said report, the learned Trial Court had compared the handwriting of the appellant with the evidence-on-affidavit of the defendant as D.W.1 and found that admittedly, the signature of the defendant matched with the handwriting of Ext.1, and thereafter, the learned Trial Court had discarded the expert opinion illegally and believing the evidence of the plaintiff, decreed the suit, and on such count, the findings so recorded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court, are illegal and arbitrary, and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same.

8. Per contra, Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and decree, so passed by the learned First Appellate Court as well as the judgment and decree, so passed by the learned Trial Court. Mr. Laskar has pointed out that though the appellant has denied that the admitted handwriting was intentionally written in a different way, yet he admitted that his signature over the evidence-on-affidavit of D.W.1 i.e. Ext.A(1) is same with the writing of Ext.1, and as such, the learned Trial Court had rightly discarded the opinion of handwriting expert and comparing the handwriting of the D.W.1 in his evidence-on-affidavit and Ext.1, found the same similar and based upon the same and also based upon the evidence of D.W.1, rightly decreed the suit and that the same warrants no interference of this Page No.# 6/9

Court.

9. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the memo of appeal and the grounds mentioned therein, and also perused the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.08.2015, so passed by the First Appellate Court as well as the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2013, so passed by the learned Trial Court.

10. It is well settled that the opinion of handwriting expert is relevant, but the same is not conclusive proof under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Reference in this context can be made to some decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 35; Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. Prabodh Kumar Tewari, reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1089; and Prem Sagar Manocha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2016) 4 SCC 571. It is well settled in the said decisions that the Court must exercise caution while placing reliance on handwriting expert opinion due to the imperfect nature of science and the potential for bias, and corroboration with other evidence, either direct or circumstantial is generally considered prudent.

11. It is also well settled that the Courts are empowered to compare disputed signatures and handwriting directly with admitted or proved examples under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Reference in this context can be made to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fakhruddin vs. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1967 SC 1326, and this Section 73 allows the Court to form its own independent opinion even without expert testimony.

Page No.# 7/9

12. In the instant case, the learned Trial Court had rejected the opinion of the handwriting expert. Moreover, the report had not been proved by examining the handwriting expert, who had given the same. On the other hand, it appears from the evidence on record that the learned Trial Court had compared the signature of the defendant over the Ext.1 i.e. hand-note with his admitted signature in the evidence-on-affidavit, and the learned Trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the same are similar.

13. Mr. Quadir, learned counsel for the appellant, however, referring to a decision of Kerela High Court in the case of Thomas George vs. V.V. Georgekutty, reported in (2020) 1 KerLJ 163, submits that while expert opinion is there, a comparison under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act is impermissible, and that Section 73 is a rule of caution and prudence having no overriding effect over Section 45 of the said Act.

13.1. Referring to another decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shyam Sundar Chowkhani alias Chandan and Ors. vs. Kajal Kanti Biswas and Ors., reported in AIR 1999 GAUHATI 101, Mr. Quadir submits that it is unsafe to arrive at a decision in a case where there is a conflict of testimony between the parties as to the general character of a signature on the correct determination of the genuineness of the signature by mere comparison with the admitted signatures.

13.2. Mr. Quadir has further referred to a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sabha Ram Das vs. Mahendra Das, reported in (2000) 1 GauLT 623, to contend that a reading of Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act would clearly show that where execution of document in question is denied, the party relying on that document must prove its execution and Page No.# 8/9

signature of the person who have allegedly signed it.

13.3. Referring to another decision of High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of Bhavanam Siva Reddy vs. Bhavanam Hanumantha Reddy, reported in (2017) 4 ALT 682, Mr. Quadir submits that it is not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other, and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert.

14. This Court has already discussed the opinion of handwriting expert, which is exactly not a science and its value is always corroborative and it cannot solely be relied upon to arrive at a finding. The learned Trial Court had compared the signature of the defendant/appellant herein over the hand-note and also compared the signature of the defendant over his evidence-on-affidavit and found similarity of the same, and upon such comparison, and also upon evidence so adduced by the plaintiff/respondent herein, arrived at a finding that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing her case that the defendant had taken a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as loan from the plaintiff with promise to repay the same, but he failed to repay the same on demand, and the learned Trial Court also arrived at a finding that the handwriting expert opinion is an opinion only and it will consider as 'may presume' unless the said handwriting expert is examined before the Court, and that the handwriting of a person may vary with speed as well as time period/duration, and as such, the learned First Appellate Court had arrived at a finding that the learned Trial Court did not commit any legal infirmity and thereby, upheld the same.

15. Thus, in view of the evidence on record, the findings so arrived at by Page No.# 9/9

the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court, to the considered opinion of this Court, suffers from no infirmity or illegality requiring any interference of this Court, and on such count, none of the substantial questions of law, so formulated by this Court at the time of admission of the appeal, are found to be involved herein this appeal.

16. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no merit in this appeal, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

17. Send down the records of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court, along with a copy of this judgment and order.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant