The Punjab And Haryana High Court in the case Vijay Kumar Aggarwal versus Khushal Singh observed and has stated that though Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, wherein the court is empowered in order to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures but the same cannot be done on a casual perusal or through a mere glance, which being particularly without even recording an analysis of the characteristics of the signatures admitted as the same is to be compared to those of the disputed one.
The bench headed by Justice Harkesh Manuja in the case observed while relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Thiruvengada Billai Vs. Navaneethammal and another, in the judgement on the case of property dispute from Amritsar.
In the case, the execution of agreement to sell dated December 12, 1988 and as well as the receipt of earnest money, and the other subsequent documents were also in dispute in the matter.
The bench headed by Justice Manuja stated that there being no such doubt about the proposition as stated under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the said court can take upon itself to look into the document and can also compare the disputed signatures with the acknowledged signatures.
However, it has been stated by the court that Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 wherein empowering the Court in order to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures, however, it has also been stated by the court that the same cannot be done on a casual perusal or through mere glance, which being particularly without even recording an analysis of the characteristics of the admitted signatures as it is compared to those of the disputed one.
It has also been stated by the court that there being no such exercise in order to compare the characteristics of the disputed signatures with the acknowledged signatures which is to be carried out by the first Appellate Court. As per the findings which has been recorded by the first Appellate Court with regards to the signatures of appellant, defendant on the documents or the agreement in question.
Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Sumeet Goel, Advocates, Sumeet Jain and Shivam Kaushik represented the appellant.
