Rajasthan HC Upholds Handwriting Expert Examination Of Photocopied Will After Brother Denies Signature In Succession Dispute

The petitioner sought succession-related relief based on a Will dated 28 May 2007.

The respondents disputed the claim and relied on a subsequent Will, whose original the petitioner denied possessing.

After permission to lead secondary evidence was granted, a photocopy was marked Exhibit A-1.

The petitioner denied the signature attributed to him, and the respondents sought examination of the photocopy by a handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Following earlier proceedings and remittal for fresh consideration, the District Judge allowed the application.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits the Court to consider an expert opinion on a matter requiring specialised knowledge, including handwriting; such an opinion is not conclusive and must be assessed with its supporting reasons, methodology, examined material, and the other evidence.

Permission to adduce secondary evidence, and marking a document as an exhibit, do not by themselves prove its contents, execution, or genuineness.

A photocopy’s quality and limitations may affect the feasibility and weight of expert examination but do not automatically make examination impermissible.

Article 227 confers supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction; interference is warranted for jurisdictional error, patent illegality, material procedural irregularity causing injustice, or relevant perversity.

The signature was disputed and bore on the evidentiary controversy, so expert assistance could potentially aid its resolution.

The fact that Exhibit A-1 was a photocopy could limit the examination or the weight of the resulting opinion, but the record did not show that the FSL had categorically declined to examine it on that basis.

The expert could record any limitations, while the Trial Court would retain responsibility for assessing the opinion and deciding the document’s admissibility, proof, and evidentiary value.

Because the impugned order merely permitted an evidentiary exercise and did not decide the Will’s genuineness or execution, the petitioner established no ground for Article 227 intervention.

It clarified that the genuineness, execution, admissibility, and ultimate evidentiary value of the document remained open for determination by the Trial Court; there was no order as to costs.