1998 (3) TMI 712 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation.
2. Whether the Court can rely on its own comparison of the disputed signatures with those of the admitted ones without the assistance of expert evidence.
3. Whether the plaintiff's claim regarding the transaction and the defendant's handwriting on the chit and postcards was substantiated.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation Issue:
The trial court found no merit in the plea that the suit was barred by limitation. The court concluded that the plaintiff successfully established his claim, thus dismissing the limitation defense raised by the defendant.

2. Comparison of Signatures Without Expert Evidence:
The core question formulated in the appeal was whether the Court can rely on its own comparison of the disputed signatures with those of the admitted ones without expert evidence. The court referenced Section 73 of the Evidence Act, which allows the Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to determine authenticity. The Supreme Court's observation in Murarilal v. State of M.P. (AIR 1980 SC 531) was cited, which states that the Court must compare writings and come to its own conclusion, even without expert assistance. However, the court emphasized that prudence and caution require obtaining an expert's opinion first, and if unavailable, the judge must disclose their knowledge or reference authoritative texts on handwriting comparison.

3. Plaintiff's Claim and Handwriting Evidence:
The trial court and the lower appellate court were criticized for their erroneous approach in comparing the admitted signature of the defendant with the disputed handwriting without expert assistance. The courts did not specify whether the comparison was made by naked eye, magnifying glass, or scientific method. The judgments lacked mention of any authoritative text or scientific basis for their conclusions. The courts also failed to obtain specimen handwriting of the defendant or direct evidence proving the defendant's handwriting on the chit and postcards.

The court noted that the plaintiff's solitary statement, being highly interested, could not be safely relied upon. The absence of the defendant's signature on the chit and the lack of explanation for not obtaining it weakened the plaintiff's case. The lower appellate court's reasoning based on conjectures was deemed unsound. The court highlighted that the plaintiff did not provide direct evidence proving that the postcards were written by the defendant, and the hostile witness's statement could not lend sufficient corroboration.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that although courts can rely on their own comparison of disputed signatures and handwriting, the lower courts did not follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. The faulty exercise of comparison led to erroneous judgments. The appeal was allowed, and the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside. The case was remanded to the trial court with directions for the plaintiff to obtain an expert's opinion and for the trial court to make a fresh decision based on proper evidence and comparison methods. The costs of the appeal were to be borne by the parties.