A disputed Will need not undergo expert examination; its propounder must prove its genuineness.

The first respondent/plaintiff brought a partition suit seeking a one-third share in the suit property and a declaration that a Will dated 25 January 1995, relied on by the defendants, was forged and not binding on him.

He applied under Section 45 of the Evidence Act read with Order XVI Rule 10A CPC to have the disputed Will examined by an expert.

The trial court allowed the application, and the defendants challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Section 45 of the Evidence Act makes expert opinion relevant on matters such as handwriting identity where expert skill is needed.

The Court relied on Periathal v. Gomathi, 2018 5 LW 370, for the principle that an expert’s opinion on the testator’s signature is not determinative of due execution of a Will, which must be proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Sections 68–71 of the Evidence Act.

The burden rests on the Will’s propounder to prove its execution and address suspicious circumstances, including an allegation of fabrication.

The Court also referred to Gopal Pathak v. Nitin Alias Pappu & Anr. (18 September 2026), stating that a trial court should not send disputed documents for handwriting expert opinion and may itself compare disputed and admitted documents.

The plaintiff’s allegation that the Will was fabricated did not shift the burden of proof to him or make expert examination necessary.

Under the principles applied, the defendants, as the parties relying on the Will, had to prove its execution and dispel the suspicious circumstances; an expert’s opinion on the testator’s signature would not resolve that burden or determine the Will’s validity.

The trial court therefore erred in allowing the plaintiff’s application to send the Will for expert opinion.

It set aside the order dated 4 March 2023 in I.A. No. 2 of 2021, while clarifying that it had not endorsed the Will’s genuineness: the defendants remained responsible for proving the Will and addressing the alleged suspicious circumstances, including fabrication.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.