Woman Denies Signing ₹17 Lakh Promissory Notes; Madras HC Orders Expert Examination of Signatures

The plaintiff filed two suits seeking recovery of ₹8,00,000 and ₹9,00,000 on promissory notes dated 12 March 2022 and 16 November 2022.

The defendant denied signing the notes and applied under Section 151 read with Order XXVI Rule 10-A CPC to have the disputed signatures compared with her signatures on an admitted registered sale deed dated 25 April 2023.

The trial court rejected both applications, reasoning that the sale deed was not contemporaneous and that the court could compare the signatures itself. The defendant challenged those orders under Article 227 of the Constitution

Sections 45, 47 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, permit expert evidence, evidence from a person acquainted with handwriting, and comparison by the court, respectively.

However, the court’s power to compare signatures does not make it a handwriting expert; comparison by the court without expert assistance is hazardous and should be undertaken with caution.

In State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, (1979) 2 SCC 158, the Supreme Court identified expert opinion as the prudent course where handwriting identity is central to the case

In Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal, (2008) 4 SCC 530, it reiterated that comparison must not be casual or based on a mere glance

The disputed signatures on the promissory notes were central to the plaintiff’s claims, and the defendant had specifically denied them.

The admitted registered sale deed was executed only a few months after the notes, making it sufficiently close in time for comparison; the Evidence Act does not require the admitted signature to pre-date the disputed one.

Because the trial court rejected the applications without comparing the signatures, and because the court’s own comparison would be a risky basis for deciding an issue central to the suits, expert examination was the prudent course

It directed the Sub Court to mark and send the admitted and disputed documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, for examination by a handwriting expert, and to proceed with the suits after receiving the reports.

No costs were ordered; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.