BETIDEVI Vs. SUSHILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc. Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by petitioners/plaintiffs assailing the order dated 26th of August, 2025, passed by the Third Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambah, District Morena, in Regular Civil Suit No. 72-A of 2022, whereby the application filed by petitioners under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for examination of disputed signatures of respondent No. 1 on the agreement dtd. 11/7/2019 by a handwriting expert has been rejected.

(2.) A few facts giving rise to the present petition, as narrated therein, are that petitioners have instituted a civil suit against respondent No. 1 seeking a declaration of rights and permanent injunction, praying that the sale deed dtd. 11/7/2019 be declared null, void, and inoperative along with consequential reliefs. It was contended that the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners No. 2 to 4, Late Kok Singh, was indebted to respondent No. 1 for a loan. It is alleged that under the guise of discharging this debt, a sale deed was executed by Late Kok Singh in favour of respondent No. 1 in respect of the suit property on 11/7/2019. The petitioners further alleged that on the same date, an agreement was executed between Kok Singh and respondent No. 1, whereby respondent No. 1 agreed to reconvey the property to Kok Singh if the loan was repaid. It was contended that the agreement dtd. 11/7/2019 is genuine and valid, bearing the signatures of respondent No.1. However, respondent No.1 has denied his signatures on the agreement, thereby disputing its authenticity. The petitioners, therefore, moved an application before the trial court under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to have the disputed signatures on the agreement examined by a handwriting expert, with a comparison to his admitted signatures on the sale deed of the same date. This application was, however, rejected by the trial court vide impugned order 26/8/2025, leading to the filing of the present petition.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of petitioners that the impugned order results in a grave miscarriage of justice. The rejection of the application deprives them of presenting material evidence that is crucial for proving their case. The genuineness of the agreement is seriously disputed, and the trial court erred in not permitting expert examination of disputed signatures. Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, which recognizes expert opinion in matters of handwriting and signatures, and the trial court's refusal to allow expert examination frustrates the objective of the provision. The trial court's decision to reject the application goes against settled legal principles in the light of law laid down in the cases of Murari Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1980 SC 531 and O. Bharathan v. K. Sudhakaran, (1996) 2 SCC 704 , which support allowing expert testimony when signatures are disputed. The refusal to allow expert examination prevents a fair adjudication of their case and violates their right to lead relevant evidence in support of their claim.