P&H HC: Bail Petition Rejected of Travel Agent Accused of Defrauding a Man for Processing Visa  ||  SC: Conviction for Stalking Quashed Due to Marriage Between Convict and Complainant  ||  All HC: S. 33-G UP Sec. Education Act a Benefi. Prov. for Teachers Serving for More Than 2 Decades  ||  All HC: SI Fixed at 6% p.a On Excess/Less Determination of Provi. Tariff Ultra Vires Electricity Act  ||  Del. HC: Entities Restrained from Infringing Personality Rights of Actor Jackie Shroff  ||  Bom HC: Authorisation to Export Necessary Even if Exporter has License to Sell Drugs for Med. Purpose  ||  Constitution Bench Judgment Not Considered, Supreme Court Recalls Judgement Passed in 2022  ||  SC: Full Ownership of Property Under S.14 (1) Can be Claimed by Hindu Woman Only if She Possesses it  ||  Supreme Court: Can’t Apply CrPC Retrospectively to Jammu & Kashmir Before 31.10.2019  ||  Mad. HC: Ritual of Devotee Rolling Over Leaves on Which Food Was Eaten by Others, Allowed    

Koya Lalitha Kumari and Ors. v. Polina Nageswara Rao and Ors. - (High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for Telangana and Andhra Pradesh) (10 Apr 2015)

Document proved in Court as executed by a party does not require handwriting expert opinion


Law of Evidence

Once a document is proved in the Court to have been executed, or a signature appended is proved to have been truly signed by the party concerned, it is not mandatory to obtain an opinion from a handwriting expert. The High Court noted that since the Petitioner was accused of changing the way in which she affixed her signature, nothing would be gained by the Court securing her signature and comparing it with the fraudulent ones found. It urged that courts must form their own independent opinions, after giving appropriate weight to the opinion of an expert.

Relevant : Budumuru Vijayanandh vs. Potnuru Bhagyalakshmi MANU/AP/0449/2004 The State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad and Ors. MANU/SC/0134/1961


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved