{"id":292439,"date":"2023-05-17T18:00:38","date_gmt":"2023-05-17T12:30:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=292439"},"modified":"2023-05-19T13:55:09","modified_gmt":"2023-05-19T08:25:09","slug":"s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Specimen Document and Signature must be admitted by parties before comparing with disputed handwriting under S. 73 of IEA: Orissa HC"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Orissa High Court:<\/b> In an appeal against the Judgment and Order of the Lower Court, wherein it was held that the disputed sale deed was a forged document, the Single- Judge Bench of B.P. Routray, J., allowed the appeal and set aside the Appellate Court’s order and restored the Trial Court’s Judgment. It was also held that the specimen document signature must be undisputed and all parties to the dispute must admit the specimen signature or writing in the base document before comparing the disputed document under Section 73<\/a> of the Evidence Act, 1872<\/a> (‘Evidence Act’).<\/p>\n

Background:<\/b><\/p>\n

The present appellants were the defendants in the original suit. The lands in dispute were originally belonging to the deceased. The plaintiff’s case was that the father of original defendant and after him the defendants were in forcible possession of the lands, and thus the plaintiff’s had accordingly prayed for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the lands along with mesne profit.<\/p>\n

The case of the present appellants was that the land was bought by father of the original defendant on 08-02-1947, on payment of consideration amount of Rs. 3,500\/-. The Trial Court had dismissed the plaintiff’s case and confirmed the sale in favour of the father of original defendant. Thereafter, aggrieved by the said order, plaintiff appealed before the District Judge. The Appellate Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and held that the sale deed was a forged document. It was also held that on comparison of signature on the sale deed with other exhibit document in exercise of power under Section 73<\/a> of the Evidence Act<\/a> the signature of the scribe was not found genuine. Thus, the present appellant had challenged the order of the Appellate Court.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/b><\/p>\n

Whether comparison of signature between two documents under Section 73<\/a> of the Evidence Act<\/a> would be complete and satisfactory without admission of parties in respect of specimen document? In other words, unless the signature on specimen document is admitted, can any such comparison made under Section 73<\/a> of the Evidence Act<\/a> be held as valid?<\/p>\n

The Court said that the crux of dispute lies in the conditional sale deed. The other exhibit document was a purported document of one proceeding of villagers unrelated to the present case, where the scribe had put his signature. Here, it needs to be mentioned that X was a complete illiterate. The Court also said that the signature of the scribe was the not admitted by the present appellant. At the time of marking exhibit document, this was objected by the present appellants and was marked by the Trial Court with note of objection by the appellants.<\/p>\n

The Court said that the Section 73<\/a> of Evidence Act<\/a>, empowers the Court to compare writings with specimen or admitted documents. The phrase ‘admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court’ used in section 73 contemplates that the specimen document taken for comparison of writing or signature in the purported document must be undisputed one and all parties to the dispute must admit the specimen signature or writing in the base document. In case one party refuses to admit, or disputes the specimen document, it is incumbent on the Court to first satisfy that the signature or writing on the specimen document is proved to be of the person concerned and only then proceed for comparison with the purported document.<\/p>\n

The Court said that in the present case, the Appellate Court before comparing the signature on the Conditional sale deed with exhibit document had forgotten to take note of this basic requirement under Section 73. The Court also said that the Judge had proceeded to compare the signatures on both the documents with violating this basic rule, even though the signature was objected by the present appellant. Therefore, the entire finding of Appellate Court was liable to be set aside. The impugned Judgment of Appellate Court was accordingly set aside. The Court also noted that it was needless to observe here that the exhibit document did not satisfy the basic criteria to be compared as specimen document.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and decree of Appellate Court was set aside. The original Judgment and decree of the Trial Court was restored.<\/p>\n

[Basi Bewa v. Raimani Majhiani, 2023 SCC OnLine Ori 2293<\/a>, Decided on 04-05-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In case one party refuses to admit the specimen document, it is incumbent on the Court to first satisfy that the signature or writing on the specimen document is proved to be of the person concerned.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":284856,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[51024,57673,44635,57671,44446,57672,5363,57674],"class_list":["post-292439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-comparison","tag-handwriting","tag-sc","tag-section-73-of-indian-evidence-act","tag-signature","tag-specimen-document","tag-supreme-court","tag-undisputed"],"yoast_head":"\nSpecimen Document or signature must remain undisputed for comparison under S. 73 of Evidence Act | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"S. 73 of Evidence Act: Specimen Document or signature must remain undisputed for comparing the disputed document and writings\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Specimen Document and Signature must be admitted by parties before comparing with disputed handwriting under S. 73 of IEA: Orissa HC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"S. 73 of Evidence Act: Specimen Document or signature must remain undisputed for comparing the disputed document and writings\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-05-17T12:30:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-05-19T08:25:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-508.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Specimen Document or signature must remain undisputed for comparison under S. 73 of Evidence Act | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-508.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-05-17T12:30:38+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-05-19T08:25:09+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"S. 73 of Evidence Act: Specimen Document or signature must remain undisputed for comparing the disputed document and writings\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-508.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-508.png\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Orissa High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Specimen Document and Signature must be admitted by parties before comparing with disputed handwriting under S. 73 of IEA: Orissa HC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Specimen Document or signature must remain undisputed for comparison under S. 73 of Evidence Act | SCC Blog","description":"S. 73 of Evidence Act: Specimen Document or signature must remain undisputed for comparing the disputed document and writings","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Specimen Document and Signature must be admitted by parties before comparing with disputed handwriting under S. 73 of IEA: Orissa HC","og_description":"S. 73 of Evidence Act: Specimen Document or signature must remain undisputed for comparing the disputed document and writings","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-05-17T12:30:38+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-05-19T08:25:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-508.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/","name":"Specimen Document or signature must remain undisputed for comparison under S. 73 of Evidence Act | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-508.png","datePublished":"2023-05-17T12:30:38+00:00","dateModified":"2023-05-19T08:25:09+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"S. 73 of Evidence Act: Specimen Document or signature must remain undisputed for comparing the disputed document and writings","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-508.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-508.png","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Orissa High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/17\/s-73-of-evidence-act-specimen-document-or-signature-must-remain-undisputed-for-comparison-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Specimen Document and Signature must be admitted by parties before comparing with disputed handwriting under S. 73 of IEA: Orissa HC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-508.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":312627,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/01\/supreme-court-rejection-of-application-for-handwriting-expert-opinion-in-cheque-dishonour-case-section-138-ni-act-legal-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":292439,"position":0},"title":"When can an application for Handwriting Expert\u2019s Opinion in Cheque Dishonour Case be rejected? Supreme Court explains","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 1, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the appellant Court was right in rejecting the application of the accused seeking opinion of the handwriting expert in Cheque Dishonour case.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Cheque Dishonour","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Cheque-Dishonour.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Cheque-Dishonour.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Cheque-Dishonour.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Cheque-Dishonour.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":265098,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/","url_meta":{"origin":292439,"position":1},"title":"AP HC | Signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard for want of expert opinion under S. 45 Evidence Act","author":"Editor","date":"April 6, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Andhra Pradesh High Court: Ninala Surya, J., decided to not interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the civil writ petition. The facts of the case are such that the respondent\/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs 1, 71,600\/- with future interest and costs. The petitioner\/defendant\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":228847,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/04\/29\/practice-and-procedure-relating-to-proof-of-documents\/","url_meta":{"origin":292439,"position":2},"title":"Practice and Procedure Relating to Proof of Documents\u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 29, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"by Karl Shroff*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/EVIDENCE.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/EVIDENCE.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/EVIDENCE.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/EVIDENCE.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/EVIDENCE.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":240586,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/12\/chh-hc-merely-proving-the-signature-of-the-attesting-witness-would-not-amount-to-the-due-compliance-of-s-69-of-the-evidence-act-s-90-of-evidence-act-not-to-apply-on-wills\/","url_meta":{"origin":292439,"position":3},"title":"Chh HC | Merely proving the signature of the attesting witness would not amount to the due compliance of S. 69 of the Evidence Act; S.90 of Evidence Act not to apply on wills","author":"Editor","date":"December 12, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K Agrawal J., dismissed the second appeal being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such that the suit property was held by Jhulan Rajwar, who acquired patta of suit land in his favour in Surguja Settlement and remained in possession during his lifetime\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":247675,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/will-3\/","url_meta":{"origin":292439,"position":4},"title":"[Will] HP HC | Where the document is written by one person and signed by another, the handwriting of the former and the signature of the later have both to be proved in view of S. 67 of the Evidence Act","author":"Editor","date":"April 27, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. dismissed the appeal being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such that respondent 1 filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellants alleging that the Will in question executed by the mother of appellant 1,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":338598,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/07\/andhra-pradesh-high-court-recovery-money-promissory-note-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":292439,"position":5},"title":"Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds recovery of money with interest based on promissory note; Rejects claims of forgery","author":"Arunima","date":"January 7, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court cannot assume that every handwriting Expert who has been duly qualified by the Government will necessarily have such special skill and knowledge that he will always give accurate opinions on one disputed point.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Andhra Pradesh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292439","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=292439"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292439\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/284856"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=292439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=292439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=292439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}